Geocentricity 101, Part I
Geocentricity 101, Part I, Basic Concepts
Mark Wyatt
August 1st, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe. Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.
If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points. This is basically stating that a coordinate transformation can be made from some to any other coordinate system (say x, y, and z axis) with its origin placed arbitrarily in space. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then the relative motions of the observed objects in the heavens will be consistent with the relative motions from any other correctly applied coordinate system at a different location. This is basic vector mathematics and is not controversial. To state it more simply if one observes the relative motions of objects in the heavens (let's say we pick earth, our sun, and say one distant galaxy) from a spot on the surface of the moon, one can consider this the origin of a coordinate system (say CS1). If one then observes the motions of the same objects from a location on Mar's surface, this represents a coordinate system transformation to a new coordinate system (Say CS2). Since we can think of ourselves as sitting at the origin of whatever coordinate system we choose, this point becomes fixed in space, and the universe appears to revolve around us at this point. If one plotted the relative motions from CS1 and CS2 relative to their respective origins, the paths of the observed objects would seem very different. In fact though, they would be consistent. If one transformed a coordinate system from CS1 to a thrid coordinate system (CS3, say on the surface of Alpha Centuri), and one did the same coordinate transformation from CS2 to CS3, the resulting paths of objects realtive to the origin of CS3 should be identical.
Let's take an example. Let's start at CS1, viewing the path of the earth. Assuming we pick a location on the face of the moon with view to earth, we would see the earth rotating in place on about a 23.12 hour period (this accounts for a 24 hour rotation + the 27.3 day period of the moon orbiting the earth). Ignoring any ellipticity in the moons orbit, basically the earth appears not to be translating, but only rotating. The sun would have more complicated motion. It would appear to have a 27.3 day cycle (the lunar orbital period), and would spend much of the time eclipsed by the earth, or behind us. The distant objects would rotate on 27.3 day periods, apparently on a sphere.
Now let's transform to CS2, the surface of Mars. To be sure we can always see the earth. let's fix CS2 on Mar's North pole, and allow Mars to rotate on our z-axis (a rotating Mars reference frame, z-axis pointing north). In some cases, the earth will move behind us, but we can look over our shoulders at it. The earth will appear to have a bizzare motion, sometimes moving towards us, sometimes moving away. The path will be curved, often making loops. Pretty similar to watching Mars from earth.
Now if we transformed from CS1 to CS3 (sitting out in space say on one of Alpha Centuri's poles, with the star permitted to rotate on its axis if it wants to) we would see the moon travelling around the earth, the earth apparently travelling around the sun, etc., all apparently in fixed space. Now keep in mind that if the universe was rotating with Alpha Centuri in it, we just stoppped the rotation by fixing our coordinate system on Alpha Centuri. If we transform from CS2 to CS3, we get the same result. This is what is meant by the observed motions are consistent.
In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation). The universe will revolve around the earth. In a geocentric model, we are stating that this is the true reality of the universe, and we want to go beyond the fact that we can perform a coordinate transformation to achieve this model. There is no controversy regarding the observations. All the observations man has collected up to the space age have been a fixed earth model. Ptolemy's model of the universe had high observational accuracy, and was based on fixed earth observations. Ptolemy's observations are still consistent with space based observations (coordinate transformation). Ptolemy's model was transformable to different locations on the fixed earth. Finding the physics to describe why the paths were as they were in Ptolemy's model is difficult.
Corpenicus created a heliocentric model using the same basic observations of Ptolemy. In his model, the sun was the center of the universe. As in Ptolemy's model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations. In order to gain the same accuracy as Ptolemy's model, Corpencius required 48 epicycles to Ptolemy's 40. An example of an epicycle is illustrated here for a Ptolemaic system (epicycle).
Tycho Brahe proposed the Tychonic geocentric model. In his original model, the sun and stars revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The planets orbit the sun with circular orbits. The Tychonian system is as accurate as the Corpenican, except it does not predict parallax.
In modern geocentric theories, the modern-Tychonian or neo-Tychonian model are used. The modern-Tychonian system is the same as the original, except the planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits. In the neo-Tychonian system the further extension of the modern-Tychonian that the stars are centered on the sun, is added. The neo-Tychonian system directly predicts parallax. Parallax can also be created in the modern-Tychonian system by providing for a precession of the universe. The results of either modification are essentially the same.
No one argues that from an observational perspective all these systems are equivalent. It is simply a matter of relative motion. The observed motions in the various models are consistent between models to some degree o accuracy. Clearly there are geocentric (i.e. modern-Tychonic type), heliocentric (i.e., Keplerian type), and acentric (i.e., Kepler like with no center) which can match all known observations, including parallax, abberation, motion of the planets, etc. According to modern physics, the systems are equivalent, also. This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense."
Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also says:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"
These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein's General Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!) Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that reference frame as fixed.
In the next section, we will look at some fio the physics of a geocentric universe.
Mark Wyatt
August 1st, 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.
---------------------------------------------------------
There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe. Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.
If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points. This is basically stating that a coordinate transformation can be made from some to any other coordinate system (say x, y, and z axis) with its origin placed arbitrarily in space. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then the relative motions of the observed objects in the heavens will be consistent with the relative motions from any other correctly applied coordinate system at a different location. This is basic vector mathematics and is not controversial. To state it more simply if one observes the relative motions of objects in the heavens (let's say we pick earth, our sun, and say one distant galaxy) from a spot on the surface of the moon, one can consider this the origin of a coordinate system (say CS1). If one then observes the motions of the same objects from a location on Mar's surface, this represents a coordinate system transformation to a new coordinate system (Say CS2). Since we can think of ourselves as sitting at the origin of whatever coordinate system we choose, this point becomes fixed in space, and the universe appears to revolve around us at this point. If one plotted the relative motions from CS1 and CS2 relative to their respective origins, the paths of the observed objects would seem very different. In fact though, they would be consistent. If one transformed a coordinate system from CS1 to a thrid coordinate system (CS3, say on the surface of Alpha Centuri), and one did the same coordinate transformation from CS2 to CS3, the resulting paths of objects realtive to the origin of CS3 should be identical.
Let's take an example. Let's start at CS1, viewing the path of the earth. Assuming we pick a location on the face of the moon with view to earth, we would see the earth rotating in place on about a 23.12 hour period (this accounts for a 24 hour rotation + the 27.3 day period of the moon orbiting the earth). Ignoring any ellipticity in the moons orbit, basically the earth appears not to be translating, but only rotating. The sun would have more complicated motion. It would appear to have a 27.3 day cycle (the lunar orbital period), and would spend much of the time eclipsed by the earth, or behind us. The distant objects would rotate on 27.3 day periods, apparently on a sphere.
Now let's transform to CS2, the surface of Mars. To be sure we can always see the earth. let's fix CS2 on Mar's North pole, and allow Mars to rotate on our z-axis (a rotating Mars reference frame, z-axis pointing north). In some cases, the earth will move behind us, but we can look over our shoulders at it. The earth will appear to have a bizzare motion, sometimes moving towards us, sometimes moving away. The path will be curved, often making loops. Pretty similar to watching Mars from earth.
Now if we transformed from CS1 to CS3 (sitting out in space say on one of Alpha Centuri's poles, with the star permitted to rotate on its axis if it wants to) we would see the moon travelling around the earth, the earth apparently travelling around the sun, etc., all apparently in fixed space. Now keep in mind that if the universe was rotating with Alpha Centuri in it, we just stoppped the rotation by fixing our coordinate system on Alpha Centuri. If we transform from CS2 to CS3, we get the same result. This is what is meant by the observed motions are consistent.
In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and fix it (allow no rotation or translation). The universe will revolve around the earth. In a geocentric model, we are stating that this is the true reality of the universe, and we want to go beyond the fact that we can perform a coordinate transformation to achieve this model. There is no controversy regarding the observations. All the observations man has collected up to the space age have been a fixed earth model. Ptolemy's model of the universe had high observational accuracy, and was based on fixed earth observations. Ptolemy's observations are still consistent with space based observations (coordinate transformation). Ptolemy's model was transformable to different locations on the fixed earth. Finding the physics to describe why the paths were as they were in Ptolemy's model is difficult.
Corpenicus created a heliocentric model using the same basic observations of Ptolemy. In his model, the sun was the center of the universe. As in Ptolemy's model, the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations. In order to gain the same accuracy as Ptolemy's model, Corpencius required 48 epicycles to Ptolemy's 40. An example of an epicycle is illustrated here for a Ptolemaic system (epicycle).
Tycho Brahe proposed the Tychonic geocentric model. In his original model, the sun and stars revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The planets orbit the sun with circular orbits. The Tychonian system is as accurate as the Corpenican, except it does not predict parallax.
In modern geocentric theories, the modern-Tychonian or neo-Tychonian model are used. The modern-Tychonian system is the same as the original, except the planets orbit the sun with elliptical orbits. In the neo-Tychonian system the further extension of the modern-Tychonian that the stars are centered on the sun, is added. The neo-Tychonian system directly predicts parallax. Parallax can also be created in the modern-Tychonian system by providing for a precession of the universe. The results of either modification are essentially the same.
No one argues that from an observational perspective all these systems are equivalent. It is simply a matter of relative motion. The observed motions in the various models are consistent between models to some degree o accuracy. Clearly there are geocentric (i.e. modern-Tychonic type), heliocentric (i.e., Keplerian type), and acentric (i.e., Kepler like with no center) which can match all known observations, including parallax, abberation, motion of the planets, etc. According to modern physics, the systems are equivalent, also. This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to state:
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory “wrong” in any meaningful physical sense."
Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also says:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"
These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein's General Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!) Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that reference frame as fixed.
In the next section, we will look at some fio the physics of a geocentric universe.
posted by Mark Wyatt at Monday, August 01, 2005
80 Comments:
Robert:
I suspect it will be some time next year. It is definately in the works.
Mark
You would do well to learn about inertial reference frames and why people prefer non-inertial reference frames - like the one where the earth revolves around a point very near the sun - as opposed to inertial ones like the one where the sun goes around the earth. The scientific relativism involved in equating all reference frames implies an amount of willful ignorance which goes beyond hubris.
As a catholic I find it disturbing that someone would feel the need to interpret the bible and church teachings in such a conservative way as to go searching for centuries old papal edicts when the brain god gave us will do. It strikes me as nothing less than a return to the very Talmudic law that Jesus came to earth to free us of. Let us hope that your quest to remain ignorant of the beauty of creation does not tempt others to give up trying to help their fellow men through science, medicine and learning.
Tommaso, as a Catholic I find it disturbing that you seem to be flapping your gums about a subject which you seem to know very little about. As a advocate for "rationalism" and "science" have you even considered Eistein's theory of relativity and how it contributes to the geocentric argument?
It is ironic that you consider yourself an advocate of science, medicine and learning, but seem oblivious to current scientific understanding of relative motion. I guess you believe in the ether? Now then, who is the "traditionalist" in this argument.
What a boob.
The problem is that from different viewpoints (from The Earth in Geocentrism and from The Sun in Heliocentrism) one would see the same movement (of The Sun and of The Earth respectively) so that we don't easily know what actually happens (does The Earth stand still and The Sun moves? Or The Sun stands still and The Earth moves?).
And, as it clearly seems to be, to that problem Einstein and his theory can give no answer: at any time only one viewpoint can be actual while Einstein's Special Relativity theory applied to this case only correctly states that had both viewpoints been actual they would have produced equal result to be observed i.e. it cannot say which one of the two viewpoints is the actual viewpoint.
So, it is a huge falsity that both systems are actually true: only one of them is actual and thus actually true and The Church has always taught that Geocentrism is that one (see Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position).
Heliocentrism only has potential to become actual but it is not actual. So Heliocentrism is potentially true but actually false.
Human mind is not satisfied with more equal possibilities any of which can be the actual one. Human mind wants to know what happens i.e. what is actually true.
It is a well known truth that the same effect achieved by more means is less efficient.
In Geocentric system The Earth is immovable and The Sun moves around it. In Heliocentric system The Sun is immovable while The Earth moves around The Sun and additionally rotates around itself.
So, we have only one movement in Geocentric system against the two movements (100% increase in means!) in Heliocentric system to produce equal result.
Since it is absolutely impossible that God would make something in a less efficient (50% less efficient!) way it is obvious that Heliocentric system is not the actual one.
The promoters of geo-centrism are wrong in their interpretations of Scripture, the Early Fathers and the Popes. Their so-called scientific demonstrations are entirely based upon scientific minutia and ignore basic simple facts. They seem paranoid to me rather than critical. I defend their Catholic status, but doubt their good judgment. In the future, astronomers will figure out that it is the Sun which is the center of the Universe, not the earth. Everything else rotates around it. That is why it is a symbol of the Divinity.
James Dagos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGjlT3XHb9A&NR=1
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.
Uhm.
Look, I'm all in favour of challenging the consensus in science, but this is a bit extreme.
Tell you what. If you guys can launch a probe and safely land it on Mars to send back pictures, or better yet, navigate the outer planets using geocentric physics, then I'll take your theories seriously. I mean, before you can get object C from point A (earth) to point B (somewhere in the solar system) you first need to know where A and B is, right?
Look.
The internet you're using to promote this idea, relies on modern physics for its very existence. Without modern physics, we would net have been able to put the relay satellites in orbit which transmits the internet signals around the earth.
So, it is kinda ironic that you use the internet to promote ideas which would make the internet itself impossible.
GEOCENTRISM AND MR SUGENIS.
NASA Use geo. calculations
to put up satellites - it gives the same answer. Plus Fred Hoyle
the astronomer said it did not matter which system you choose.
HERE IS MY JOE SOAP WAY OF LOOKING
AT GEOCENTRISM :-
WATER OR AIR MOVING SOUTH OR NORTH
The Gulf stream is supposed to be
doing about 1000 mph from WEST TO EAST together with everything else-
so we are not supposed to notice
it.
But at the Poles the rotation speed is almost zero.
So the Gulf stream starts to move North to Europe at about 4 mph faster than 1000mph. (Even the turn north would be impossible) But when it gets to Europe it would have to slow down by about 600 mph !!!!!!!
A plane can slow down being small and light but can you imagine
trillions of tons of water slowing
down by 600 mph - the volume and mass is incredible ??????
As it pushes into the slower (WEST TO EAST) water the Atlantic would be a foaming whirlpool. This gulf stream water would be doing a relative 600 mph ( WEST TO EAST) faster than the European water.
AIR is supposed to have been rotating with the earth since creation - evolutionists would say
for billions of years. However weather systems would continually
slow this down.
Since the only point of friction is the ground how can we
ever have a still night where you
can drop a feather vertically.
Air is not very viscous and has low friction so what keeps about 10miles of air moving at 1000 mph (WEST TO EAST) at the equator but only say 100 mph at the poles.
At the equator the earth and the air are supposed to be doing 1000 mph from west to east but any movement north or south would create tremendous forces.
Any water current moving from North to South would have to speed up from West to East by about 700 mph - this is impossible.
AIR
A cold front coming down from the Arctic is doing say 100 mph from west to east - as it hits say Germany it would have to speed up from west to east by around 500 mph.
There would not be a house left standing.
It is movements North and South of water and air that undermine
heliocentrism.
Geocentrism easily accounts for
artillery fire adjustments as well.
Mr Sugenis is not the first to believe in geocentrism - eg Galileo's fellow scientists disagreed with him .
He was incarcerated in luxury because he verbally insulted the Pope who asked him to delay announcing his theory until the scientific debate was over.
One thing I discovered about people who believe in absolutely irrational things: if you point out to them where they are wrong, even if they agree with you, they still will not change their beliefs. So, this is not for those posting, but for those reading who may wonder at the claims posted.
Above, someone posted about the impossibility of walking on a 500 m/s belt. If you've flown on an airplane, they move at around 100-150 m/s. Anyone ever have difficulty walking up and down the aisle?
Another previous poster discusses the difference between the speed of rotation at the poles and at the equator. Congratulations, you've discovered the Coriolis force which is responsible for things like the gulf stream, trade winds, etc.
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange1/10_4.shtml
What you are incorrect in is the scale. The Earth is big and there is room for these differences to be taken up and they are.
As far as the frame of reference, yes, you can construct a frame of reference with the earth at the center and everything rotating around it somehow. However, given this frame of reference you cannot account for the movement of the sun, moon, planets and stars simply using the law of gravity. You need a rather absurdly complicated system of epicycles to account for their movement. In science, given a simple answer, and a complicated answer, the simple answer is favored. There was some mention of epicycles in Copernicus' explanation - that is because Copernicus had the planets moving in circular orbits. Newton has the planets moving in ellipses and all of the epicycles go away.
Anon - You talk about the scale
of things. The Gulf stream is an
enormous body of water moving from
West to East at 1000 mph which has to slow down to around 400 mph when it reaches the shores of Europe. The turn from west to east then north at 1000 mph
would be some turn due to the slowing down by 600 mph before it hits Europe.
I am not an astronomer but geocentrism can account for the coriolis effect.
How do you know you are not believing in something irrational
especially since so many astronomers say you can't prove
heliocentrism.
This is not related to the other
articles but south and north flows
of enormous bodies of water and air.
Anon - why not study the www.geocentrism.com website
for different viewpoints eg
from Hubble and Hawkings
This is garbage.
Anon. This is not the only website
- lots of scientists seem to believe in geocentrism or say it can't be proven either way. So we
have to rely on the word of God.
The Gulf Stream is not moving at 1000 mph unless you are factoring in the earth's rotation. It is measured to move at about 5-6 mph.
If you factor in the Earth's rotation, moving East-West does not involve any changes because everything is moving at the same speed. There is a change when you move north-south.
The Gulf Stream moves west-east and south to north from about the tip of Florida, so let's call that 24 degrees north. The Earth's rotation at that latitude is about 900 mph. By the time it hits England, at about 50 degrees north, the Earth's rotational speed is 670 mph. That's a difference of 230 mph. Pretty significant, huh?
However, that 230 mph difference is made up over 26 degrees of latitude, or about 1700 miles. That means, that for each mile northward, the current has to slow down by about .13 mph. Looks a lot less significant now.
The same holds true when you are talking about the difference in speed between air at the poles and air over, say Europe. Speed at the north pole is 0, speed over London is 670 mph, 2700 miles from London to the north pole, or .24 mph difference per mile.
Anon - I admit that I was careless
in the calculations but I live in
Glasgow - so the equator is 1040 rotation speed mph and Scotland is about 600 mph - have you ever seen
an enormous body of water slowing
down by 440 mph from west to east.
What slows it so much and why is there not incredible turbulence.
Even a river doing say 10 mph leaves turbulence as it enters the sea.
The Gulf stream is still the speed of a plane but its the enormous momentum that counts.
We need a mathematician.
I don't know if Mr Sugenis covers
these areas.
It does not slow down by that amount in one swoop. It slows down slowly, by .13 (that's a tenth of a mile per hour, much less than walking speed) per mile traversed.
It's moving south to north at about 5 mph, so it covers a mile every 20 minutes. So, every 20 minutes it will move north by a mile and slow down by .13 miles per hour (east-west).
It's really a tiny amount and you just won't notice it. About 1/80th of your 10mph river example.
charles allan - the gulf stream comes out at the equator it appears
to me - so it is doing 1040 mph
then turns north. You say it slows
down at .13 mph. However if I was
to fire water at over 1000 mph (faster than some bullets) into
slower moving water I think it would create some tremendous turbulence. We have to find out WHAT would slow down a massive body of water by about 500 mph.
I therefore ask you to explain
how the air keeps moving at the same speed as the earth - why has it not slowed down over billions
of years since it has a tiny point
of friction - the ground.
You see for calmness or lack of turbulence air and water have to stay in the same latitudes.
Also - Centrifugal force
If the Gulf stream is doing 1040mph
from east to west there would be a tremendous centrifugal force to stop it moving north.
Heliocentrism does not make sense.
It's all about a gradual change.
Yes, if you fire water at 1000 mph into water that is at 0 mph you will see lots of turbulence.
However, when water at 1000mph moves into water at 999.9 mph you won't see anything. It is a gradual speed up taking place over thousands of miles.
What slows the water down or speeds it up as it moves north and south? Friction with the surrounding water moving.
Why should the air slow down (moving east to west at the same latitude, at the same speed as the rotating Earth)? Remember Newton's first law - a body in motion will tend to stay in motion. The only thing that would slow the air down is friction. Friction with what? The Earth is spinning and the air is spinning along with it. Things do not slow down unless a force is applied - usually friction. They do not just slow down because they have been moving for a while.
From Charles Allan
Yes you are right if the water is moving in the same direction but the Gulf Stream quickly turns
north so we are getting water which is moving west to east at 1040 mph turning north cutting across water moving west to east at about 1000 mph.
So it is not going in the same direction at all.
Plus you say that it slows down by say .2 mph easily. So why does the gulf stream chunter north
for say 2000 miles at about 2- 4 mph without slowing down - it is because of its massive momentum.
Plus we have the problem of centrifugal force which would deter water at the equator from moving north or south without turbulence.
If evolutionary scientists can't say whether geo or helio is true how can we. Plus I saw a website
where NASA scientist are bouncing a laser off the moon to try and prove one or the other ( I admit
not to have studied it but you can google it up ).
So you say no friction has slowed the air down over billions of years - true there is no direct
friction – but air systems would have sapped energy from the air flow . You might say they have
to balance out but this is not the case. The friction comes from the wind blowing against the
ground in storms – eg going in the opposite direction etc – I don't think this would balance out in
a perfect equation.
I don't think ground friction on a non viscous gas can keep 10 miles of air moving at the same
rotation speed of the earth. We would never have a still night if this was the case.
If Hubble and Hoyle say geo or helio cannot be proven then how can we be dogmatic.
I am not qualified in any of these areas but lets say we have a massive river doing 50 mph and
we have a hose in a tanker driving alongside the river at 50 mph .
The tanker blasts a hose at
right angles into the river say at 100 mph – this would create incredible turbulence. Well this
is what must happen in the Gulf Stream and the Humboldt current.
Everything is moving together. In your Gulf Stream example, we have a current moving east-to-west at a relative speed of 6 mph at 24 degrees north (tip of Florida). The Earth's speed at that latitude is about 900 mph, so the Gulf Stream is moving at 894 mph east-to-west. When it makes the turn to go north, it is now moving north at 6 mph and east-to-west at 900 mph. It did not stop and move north at 6 mph and east-west at 0 mph.
There is no question in the scientific community about whether the Earth is rotating and whether the Earth goes around the Sun or not. The Earth rotates and the Earth circles the Sun. You have badly misquoted Hubble and Hoyle. If there were a debate you would hear about it on TV on a regular basis. You're further out in the weeds than even the creation scientists.
As far as NASA bouncing a laser off a reflector that we left on the moon, it would have been impossible for us to reach the moon if we didn't know how the Earth rotates and how the Moon orbits it. NASA knows that the Earth rotates.
If you had a tanker blasting a water stream out at 100 mph it would cause turbulence. However, the Gulf Stream is not moving at 100 mph relative to the other water. In your example with the tanker, that 100 mph right angle blast would be the Gulf Stream's south to north speed. However, we have agreed that it moves south to north at something like 6 mph. You keep coming up with examples of things running into each other at hundreds or thousands of miles per hour relative velocity. However, that relative velocity is not occurring in any of the examples you want to cite. All of the changes due to north south movement are very gradual.
I thought what Hubble and Hoyle and many others said was quite clear. Everthing is relative so we
can't tell.
You said that water slows down at around .2 mph so why does the gulf stream manage to cover 2000 miles at around 3- 4 mph without slowing down and stopping in a few miles
even relatively.
The Gulf Stream comes out at the equator which is moving from west to east at 1040 mph then goes North .
It is the fact it has turned North at 1000 mph and is therefore at right angles to most of the rest
of the Atlantic which is doing West to East at 1000 mph -so it is not really relative at this point.
You have avoided the right angle
of the Gulf stream to west to east water removing the relativity.
Plus we still have the problem of centrifugal force deterring the Gulf stream from doing a sharp left
turn.
There are quite a lot of scientists supporting Mr Sugenis.
LOL, Stupidity is infinitely complex
Kapil - you are saying that Einstien , Hubble and Hoyle are stupid ?? They said both Geocentric and Heliocentric models
work.
ANONYMOUS you are much better at maths than me . I am not an astronomer - I was relying on other people like Einstein , Hoyle and Hubble – I assume their quotes on Dr Sugenise's site to be correct. I think you are saying the sun has to go too fast – but is anything too fast in the universe – since the speed of light has been slowing down over the last 400 years.
Someone calculated that the speed of light in Solomon's time would have been 10,000 times faster. We tend to box things into our own experience. Plus the distance of the stars is in question. Recently in a lab light has been slowed down , stopped and restarted.
By the way is the Gulf stream not west to east rather than east to west ?
Anonymous - but the gulf stream does not slow down much - it moves
north about 3-4 mph so where did the other 500 mph of slowing down go ?
Anonymous - you would be better to
buy Sugensis' book rather than ask
me since he explains all those things with his co writer- a physicist.
To me one of the biggest problems
is the air - no matter which direction it moves in it slows down
due to friction. So how can we have
a still night just above the ground level.
Anonymous - " you would hear it on TV - ARE YOU KIDDING TV is totally
evolutionist and anti biblical - as is all the media.
Funny how the moon has not disappeared into intestellar space since it it moving away from the earth at about 3 inches per year.
Multiply this by about 4 billion years.
Anon.
I am not an astronomer but Hubble
Hoyle and Einstein said in their quotes that due to relativity you cannot prove either system - were they not telling the truth ?
Science changes - the speed of light seems to be no longer constant and has been measured over the last 400 years to be slowing down on a curve.
Since I have not read the book I have not made up my mind but there
are many physicists and astronomers
who approved of the findings. Plus
there are other books on the same topic.
Anon - weather systems continually
slow down the air and the only point of friction to get the air back up to speed of rotation is friction at ground level. Plus the
air follows the earth at speeds
of 1000 mph at the equator and zero
at the poles.
So what I am saying is their does not seem enough turbulence at ground level to justify a rotating earth.
As far as the quotes from Hubble, Einstein, Hoyle and Born you might note that those are short quotes.
Physicists and astronomers do not take radically different (and hence interesting) positions in an off-hand quote. They would have published papers on the subject. Einstein would have loved to write something like "The sun really orbits around the Earth". His work on relativity upended all of physics, shook it out and recast it. He would not have been afraid to upend cosmology as well.
My comments keep disappearing. I'm not sure if someone is deleting them or if they are too long. I am breaking my previous one up to see if they're just too long.
You should do the math yourself. The Moon is moving away at about 3 cm or 1.4 inches per year. Multiply that by 4 billion and you get about 5.6 billion inches or about 88,000 miles. The Moon is currently about 238,000 miles away so having once been 88,000 miles closer is pretty plausible. Your number of 3 inches per year would make it about 180,000, still plausible.
My comments with all of the math are being deleted it appears. This is unfortunate.
Try this on for size. Standing on the Earth it is not at all evident that it is moving through space, spinning or doing anything except being absolutely solid. The Sun pretty obviously goes across the sky. Why would anyone come up with such a goofy theory as the Earth spinning and orbiting the Sun? Just to be perverse? To go against ancient wisdom?
No, the reason that scientists came up with these theories was to explain the things that they saw that were not so evident. How the planets and stars move through the skies. How to explain the measurements that are made and to understand how everything fits together.
We live in a world of technology that is informed by the mathematics of physics. When you drive your car and step on the brakes, the amount of force required to stop the car was computed by someone using Newton's laws. The brakes and discs are sized appropriately as well as the tires and the strength of the nuts and bolts based on those calculations.
Those physical laws that enable us to figure out how to build cars and computers and GPS satellites and receivers all fit together. You can't deny one without changing the whole system. It's taken centuries to work through that system and make it consistent and explain as many of the weird things as possible.
(cont'd)
The reason that the Earth orbiting the Sun is accepted by most is because if you don't accept that then the whole system of physics doesn't work. Think about these questions you are raising and ask yourself "Am I so smart that no one else ever asked this?" You brought up the Moon receding from the Earth. That measurement was done by a bunch of NASA scientists. Don't you think that the first thing they did was multiply through by 4 billion years and see if it made any sense? The Gulf Stream has been observed and measured for hundreds of years now. Don't you think that someone else would have caught the errors?
Who would benefit from lying to you about the Earth revolving around the Sun? The makers of science textbooks would sell just as many if the Sun went around the Earth as the other way around. Scientists would still have jobs trying to figure out how things work.
We all benefit from our understanding of physical laws through the technology that we use. And when your understanding of physical laws is wrong, the universe will tell you very strongly that you are wrong. Misunderstand Newton's laws and you build cars that don't stop and GPS receivers that don't know where you are.
Who benefits from telling you that the Sun goes around the Earth? A bunch of charlatans who make their money selling books to people who want to believe in something other than reality. Science is not about belief. You can learn and make the calculations and do the experiments and confirm what you have been told. Question all you like - but don't ignore the facts in front of you.
As far as weather systems, weather system would not slow down the air relative to the Earth. Weather systems are driven by solar energy and would, if anything, speed up the atmosphere.
See my points above about the gradual change in speed that accounts for no turbulence.
Anon - weather sytems WILL slow down air from the earth's rotation speeds. Eg if a gale blows through a forest it will be slowed down by friction no matter what direction it is moving.
Plus how would the sun magically balance this out. You said the sun's energy speeds up the air therefore why has it not ?
Have you ever heard of the jet stream? There are large currents of air moving around above our heads. Ask any pilot.
Friction between the air and the Earth will tend to make the atmosphere move at the same speed as the Earth. If the Earth is rotating friction with the Earth will cause the atmosphere to rotate along with it. If the Earth were not rotating, the atmosphere would not rotate with it.
The result would be the same regardless.
Tell me again about how the moon is going off into interstellar space, ok? Notice how when one of your arguments is debunked you don't acknowledge it, you just move to something else?
I read somewhere that the moon's orbit could never have been that close to the earth. Plus to believe that the moon was knocked off the earth into a perfect orbit by a meteor is fanciful. Any fairy story will do.
You have just admitted that the speed of the air must be delivered
at ground level - the only point of friction - nothing to do with the Jetstream. So why can we have
a perfectly still night so often
and in so many places ?
I read somewhere that the moon's orbit could never have been that close to the earth. Plus to believe that the moon was knocked off the earth into a perfect orbit by a meteor is fanciful. Any fairy story will do.
You have just admitted that the speed of the air must be delivered
at ground level - the only point of friction - nothing to do with the Jetstream. So why can we have
a perfectly still night so often
and in so many places ?
Anon - someone said that NASA and
pilots use geocentric calculations-
can this be true.
A STILL NIGHT
Means that the air say up to 100 ft above the ground is going at EXACTLY the rotation speed of the
earth - what are the chances of this.
Regarding the speed of the air with respect to the surface, it doesn't matter whether the Earth is revolving or not. Winds come through on a regular basis. What are the odds of having a still night? Pretty good apparently.
The reason you keep coming back to this is because you have this belief that something that is moving will always slow down. That is simply not true. We can all be agreed here that the Moon goes around the Earth, right? Why hasn't it stopped?
As far as using geocentric co-ordinate systems, it's a matter of convenience. When you want to describe something in your home, would you give it's latitude and longitude or would you say "The shelf is 10 feet to right of the living room door"? Does the fact that I can describe something relative to my house mean that the Universe rotates around my house?
Most people use maps to find their way from place to place. Maps of the Earth are geocentric. This does not mean the Sun orbits around the Earth.
In order for the Earth to be the center and the Sun to orbit it, the laws of physics that we use would have to be different. If you have an alternate system, please bring it up.
As far as how the Moon came to orbit the Earth, the reality is we don't know. There are theories but until someone invents a time machine there's no way to check.
Since this blog is called "Catholic Truths" a respectful discussion of God seems reasonable. If God wanted a meteor to hit the Earth and put the Moon into orbit, would it be possible?
Anon. All things are possible with
God but God can easily make the moon and all the stars galaxies etc.
Anon - as far as know some scientists have said the moon is slowing down - it also is moving away.
The friction of air on the ground
in weather systems in my opinion
would slow the air down. It will have to get back up to rotation speed. Plus the Bible says that the earth will wear
out like a cloth.
The Earth is spinning. Friction between the air and the ground will make the air spin around with it (and has). It will tend towards being still, relative to the Earth, because that is what friction does.
Only God could create a system so complex and have it all work. You are looking for things that are so simple a human can easily understand them. Why do you think God is as simple as a human?
Newton said: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
Anon - the reason is that weather
systems will continually reduce the speed and to bring it back up to speed will require noticable
friction at the point of friction
ground level - hence no still air at ground level.
Still air needs the air to go at exactly the same speed as the earth. This is only my reasoning.
Well, I haven't done all of the calculations but just given the way that air acts in everyday ways it doesn't seem to need a lot of friction to slow it down. This is probably because air doesn't weight very much. I don't think your point would make a difference whether the Earth was rotating or not.
Consider this experiment:
You're at home, you have all the windows and doors closed and you turn on a big fan. All of the papers on your desk go flying and the air is moving rapidly. You turn off the fan and what happens?
Now, you're in an airplane, flying at 300 mph. You turn on a big fan inside the airplane and the air goes blowing around. You turn off the fan and what happens?
What's going to happen in both cases is the air is going to slow back down to 0 relative to its surroundings pretty quickly because of friction.
The air surrounding the Earth does not have any friction with the vacuum surrounding us so it will tend to be at whatever speed the ground is at. Winds are the result of solar heating.
I'll put this up for geocentrists to consider.
The days are getting shorter in the Northern Hemisphere as we come up to the winter solstice.
The heliocentric model explains this by the Earth's axis being tilted and the area being illuminated by the Sun changing as the Earth orbits the Sun in its yearly cycle.
If the Sun were going around the Earth, axial tilt cannot explain the change in the length of day since any tilt the Earth had would be the same all the time.
The only geocentric explanation I have been able to find is that the Sun is going up and down through the course of the year, relative to the Earth. Unfortunately, physics as we know it has no forces that cause things to bounce in their orbits.
Another thing to consider. If you have satellite TV, you are receiving signals from a geosynchronous satellite. This means that the satellite hangs in the same place over the Earth all the time. Because the Earth is rotating, satellites can be put in an orbit that takes 24 hours to circle the planet, matching the Earth's rotation. If the Earth were not rotating, those satellites could not be moving. Things that are not moving in an orbit fall down.
Anon - Dr Sugenis covers all these
points in his book - so not being
an astronomer or having read his
book I can't comment. He has got a list of Phd's who seem to agree with his findings and the book was co written by a physicist - Dr Bennet. Plus we also have Hubble Hoyle and Einstein saying we can't tell.
I did read on another website that
NASA use geocentric calculations to put up satellites but don't know the mechanics of this.
If you haven't read his book, how can you possibly know whether it makes any sense or not?
I can find you a list of PhD's that will agree with anything. That's called an "appeal to authority" and is worthless.
See my comments above on how/why geocentric calculations are useful.
Anon - I said in all my posts it was only my OWN thoughts on the movements of water and air between 1040 mph at the equator and zero at the poles. The oceans and the air seem too calm to absorb these
differential speeds .
You dismiss the phd's but mainly only TWO untrained men Lyell and Darwin without the knowledge we have today were believed wholesale
and have damaged the faith.
I went through and explained the differences on a mile by mile basis. It's not enough to show up.
Darwin was certainly not believed wholesale. You really misunderstand the scientific process. Evolution upended everything that most scientists believed in at the time. However, it explains many, many things that were not satisfactorily explained previously. Acceptance of evolution as a valid explanation didn't happen because Darwin came back and fast-talked the scientific community. It happened because people examined the theory, argued about it, checked it and found it to agree with the facts.
Evolution remains mildly controversial (in the scientific community) because much of what it explains is historical and occurred over millions and billions of years in the past. It is difficult to show all of the proof for it.
However, the Earth rotating and orbiting the Sun is something that is happening NOW. The measurements and experiments that prove that this is what is happening have been done and can be repeated by anyone with a high school education.
We have satellites, men went to the Moon, probes have been sent to other planets and out of the Solar System. None of the calculations used to launch and guide these would work if the Earth were not orbiting the Sun. A completely different set of calculations with vastly different formulas would be needed.
There are over 3000 satellites orbiting the Earth currently. Each of these had its orbit calculated based on where it was launched from and how fast that launch point was moving. If the Earth were not rotating, the amount of fuel needed to put them in orbit would be significantly different.
ANON - As I said I am sure Dr Sugemis and Dr Bennett cover these
points. Quite interesing that the Magisterium has not changed on this.
By the way there is less prove about Darwin's theory than ever
if you care to look - eg the sedimenary layers are dating young.
All coal and gas oil and diamonds
are C14 dating at a around 40,000
years when they should contain none. It can't all be due to contamination.
Plus there is a website signed by
hundreds of scientists who cast doubt on the evidence of Darwin's
theory - they are not necessarily
Christians or creationists. You
can google it up.
Ok, earth is geocentric. Have you considered it is also flat? Cosmos Indiocopleustes, a 5th century monk says the earth is flat. He uses scripture to prove the point and does an admirable job. His book is free to read online. Enoch taught the same, book also available online. Many early church fathers believed the earth flat. Since science lies about the immovability of the earth, is it too far-fetched to believe science also lies about the shape of earth? Scripture favors flat earth and teaches that an entire ocean of water sits above the firmament, a hardened dome that is spread out like a tent over the earth. But there is so much more. There is impressive, demonstrable mathematical proof that earth has no curvature, no measurable curvature at all, let alone curvature commensurate with a 25,000 mile globe. Only the tip of the mountain on Catalina Island would be visible from the California coast if earth were a globe. The baseline of Catalina, (quite visible from California) using the formula for curvature for a 25,000 mile globe, would fall 600 feet below the line of sight if earth were a globe. Lighthouses make no sense on a globe for they could not be seen from great distances on a curved ocean. A lighthouse falls almost 300 feet below the horizon for a ship a mere 20 miles out. Speaking of which, oceans aren't curved. Water surface is always flat. Water seeks its own level. Your pool doesn't curve. The surface of a lake doesn't curve. The surface of the great lakes don't curve. Why apply impossible physics to a body of water simply because its huge! Gravity, according to science, depends on spinning earth. Seriously ask yourselves this question: If earth isn't spinning what holds the oceans to the bottom of the globe?
ETC I NEVER ever said the earth was flat. Why infer I think this.
It is a bit of a myth
anyway - eg the Vikings went to America more than 1000 years ago
and what about the Map Mundi.
The ancients could see that planets
were spherical so I doubt many or any believed the earth was flat.
The monk should have read the Bible
which says the earth is spherical.
ETC - Sorry about reply but thought you were taking the Mickey.
The earth has been seen from outer
space as a sphere and as far as I know gravity does not need a spinning earth. So can't really agree with you on this one.
Wait a minute. YOU didn't say the earth was flat. Neither did you read my post. You have never seen a full round earth from space. Ever. Every round earth shot is doctored. Check them out on youtube. Either they are animations or doctored sections made to look like the entire earth. Notice, there are never any stars...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ct/index.htm
Check out this link to the book by Cosmas Indiopleustes. Cosmas was the standard by which the Catholic Church measured for centuries regarding the subject of flat earth. Don't let the suggestion in the forward that Cosmas was Nestorian disturb you. His writings prove he was utterly Catholic. Don't be overly frustrated with those who refuse to believe the earth is stationary if you won't look yourself at the truth, as well as the proofs, that earth is also flat.
So, all of you here who believe the Sun goes around the Earth but think the Flat Earth people are nuts - that's how everyone else thinks about you. A little food for thought...
Bravo! Yes, for some reason the geocentric crowd is afraid. They want people to listen to them, but they do not listen themselves. Not one of them will deal with any of the facts. Take the water problem. Water surface is always flat: glass of water, pool surface, lake, bigger lake, ocean. How does the ocean water surface curve around a globe when water surface doesn't curve?
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.
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.
Now you 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.
ETC: "Bravo! Yes, for some reason the geocentric crowd is afraid. They want people to listen to them, but they do not listen themselves. Not one of them will deal with any of the facts. Take the water problem. Water surface is always flat: glass of water, pool surface, lake, bigger lake, ocean. How does the ocean water surface curve around a globe when water surface doesn't curve?".
ETC, this isn't true because the water follows the shape of a body around which it goes/stays.
Now, everything heavy tends down to the middle of The Universe and The Earth is in the middle of The Universe (see on galileo-rout.blogspot.com). Thus water would go to the middle point of The Universe if there were no Earth. Because of that water follows the round shape of The Earth.
Love your work.
I have a research thread here:
http://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t39-stationary-earth
Thanks.
http://earthisthecenteroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/
I am with this page
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm glad this page
I see that the earth does not revolve
I began my research four years ago
And I came to the conclusion following
Father Adam did not have parents
As well as Christ is different from the rest of humanity
The miracles of the prophets like this issue we are facing
Not the Earth's rotation = miracle
There is a star called Taubotis on 50 light-years away
Star is accompanied by a planet
Star moving in an orbit around the planet during the 3.3 days
The radius of the orbit = 0.01 astronomical units = 1.5 million kilometers
Distant galaxies orbiting our galaxy over 250 million years from east to west
Center of our galaxy revolves around the sun in one year from east to west
Sun moves in an oval orbit diameter of 5 million kilometers during the year from west to east
The level of the previous orbit italic for terrestrial equator at an angle of 23.5 degrees
Former center orbit about a point near the center of the Earth
This point after 4700 kilometers from the center of the Earth
And a rotation time of 27.3 days from east to west
This point, about 4700 kilometers from the center of the earth is moving in a circular path around the center of the Earth on a daily basis from east to west
Planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits
Earth is no ordinary planet
The sun revolves around the earth
The moon moves in an oval orbit during the month from west to east and the level of its orbit for the equator tend Ground 23.5 degrees, with a difference of 5 degrees on the level of the orbit of the sun
The former center of the moon's orbit is going on the ground Mrkzalkrh during day
There are changes happening in the rotation speeds and changes occur in the positions of stars and planets appear over time can draw a map based on the idea orbits recycling and the earth the center of the universe
I am Egyptian and Muslim
أنا سعيد بهذه الصفحة
وأرى أن الأرض لا تدور
وأنا بدأت بحثي قبل أربعة أعوام
وتوصلت للنتيجة التالية
أبونا آدم لم يكن له أبوين
وكذلك المسيح يختلف عن بقية البشر
ومعجزات الأنبياء تشبه هذه المسألة التي نحن بصددها
عدم دوران الارض = معجزة
ويوجد نجم يطلق عليه تاوبوتيس على بعد ٥٠ سنة ضوئية
يرافق النجم كوكب
النجم يتحرك في مدار حول الكوكب خلال ٣.٣ يوم
نصف قطر المدار = ٠.٠١ وحدة فلكية = ١.٥ مليون كيلومترات
المجرات البعيدة تدور حول مجرتنا خلال ٢٥٠ مليون عام من الشرق الى الغرب
مركز مجرتنا يدور حول الشمس خلال عام واحد من الشرق الى الغرب
الشمس تتحرك في مدار بيضاوي قطره ٥ مليون كيلومترات وذلك خلال عام من الغرب الى الشرق
ومستوى المدار السابق مائل بالنسبة لخط الإستواء الأرضي بزاوية ٢٣.٥ درجات
مركز المدار السابق يدور حول نقطة قريبة من مركز الكرة الأرضية
هذه النقطة على بعد ٤٧٠٠ كيلومترات من مركز الكرة الأرضية
وزمن الدوران قدره ٢٧.٣ يوم من الشرق الى الغرب
وهذه النقطة التي تبعد ٤٧٠٠ كيلومترات عن مركز الكرة الأرضية تتحرك في مسار دائري حول مركز الأرض بشكل يومي من الشرق الى الغرب
الكواكب تدور حول الشمس في مدارات بيضاوية
الأرض ليست كوكبا عاديا
الشمس تدور حول الارض
القمر يتحرك في مدار بيضاوي خلال شهر من الغرب الى الشرق ومستوى مداره يميل بالنسبة لخط الإستواء الأرضي ٢٣.٥ درجات مع اختلاف قدره ٥ درجات عن مستوى مدار الشمس
مركز مدار القمر السابق يدور حول مركزالكرة الأرضية خلال يوم
هناك تغيرات تحدث في سرعات الدوران وتغيرات تحدث في مواقع النجوم والكواكب تظهر بمرور الزمن يمكن أن نرسم لها خريطة تعتمد على فكرة أفلاك التدوير وأن الأرض مركز الكون
أنا مصري ومسلم
Ah this is what happens when idiots get access to the internet that would not have existed if geocentricity was true....
NASA has launched many probes to outer solar system using Venus as a gravitational slingshot(using the gravity well of Venus to add speed to the craft, conduct a close orbit of the planet and send it on a track towards one of the outer planets).
During the calculations the scientist needed to know where Venus would be in relation to Earth and the target planet geo and helocentric models would give you very different answers.
Since the probes have made it to the targets either NASA is using helocentric physics, as I'm sure they would tell you if asked or they are using geocentric physics and are part of some grand conspiracy.
I am still unable to fully understand the essence of these assumptions. Both points have been supported by calculative evidences and by different groups but the fact that they are 'assumptions' leaves me to wonder. God does not support confusion but he gives enlightenment.
1. Foucault's pendulum proves the rotation of the earth.
2. Measurements of parallax show that if the earth were stationary the heavens would have to slide back and forth twice a year.
Thanks for playing, though.
Sorry Jim , that was a standard textbook neophyte science answer. Mach's principle accounts for Foucault pendulum with a stationary earth. Look it up. Parallax also explained by a rotating universe. I am not 'sure' whether we are motionless or not but there are equally and in some cases superior explanations by a geostationary and geocentric model. How do you account for Gamma burst rays centering on earth? How do you explain the WMAP 'Axis of evil' correlating to our the earth's equinoxes and ecliptic? How do you account for quasars aligning in concentric circles centered on the earth? On and on. Popular science gives you the propaganda. Look deeper.
Look, if you parked a satellite in a Lagrange point and had it videotape the earth, it would show the earth moving. The changing distance to the earth could be measured. And you really believe that, instead of the earth moving around the sun, like every other planet we can observe, including exoplanets, the entire universe "waves" back and forth twice a day and twice a year? Make a testable prediction and prove it, otherwise you're just wish thinking. The entire scientific world has been engaged in a vast coverup for centuries? A bunch of Bronze Age shepherds were better scientists than those that brought us modern civilization? Look, you should put up or shut up. If the sun goes around the earth, you'd better disbelieve in evolution, germ theory, radioactive decay, and the rest. And in that case, when you go to the doctor for treatment, fly on an airplane, use the Internet, etc, you're just being a cheap hypocrite.
Why do the geo stationary GPS satellites have to be set into motion through space in order to maintain their place over the planet? Why do we look at different constellations at 6 month intervals? Do the stars orbit earth? How big are the stars? Does the sun orbit earth? How big is the sun? How far away is it?
We do not witness any stars in space orbiting a stationary planet, yet we can see over 300 planets orbiting their star. Why would I believe everywhere else it works the same way except for here?
I asked about the size of the Sun because in the end most conspiracy models have a tiny sun very close to earth due to the complete denial of mathematics required to have an object so large orbiting our smaller planet.
If you can deny math, gravity, science, and common sense due to the words of a man, then so be it. God never said the earth was at the center of anything, only man has said that, and no man stands between us and God, save for his Son who is one and the same with God.
Post a Comment
<< Home