i'll give you one thing though: your video is a good refutation against some geocentric claims. if the speed of light is correct as you claim it, then your video is correct.
The problem with your argument is that the speed of light that heliocentrists claim rests entirely on their belief that heliocentrism is true. at the very least, if geocentrism is true, the speed of light is 365.25 times slower than is currently believed. there are also i am sure many other issues that heliocentrists have not acounted for. it is entirely circular logic argument and ultimately fails. ignorance is bliss they say. stop blindly trusting and do your own science.
@carlsonap16 Even if the speed of light is hundreds of times slower than currently believed, galaxies orbit at millions are still moving much faster than the speed of light. Nobody can do "their own science" on every topic in every subject. Nor does the argument I presented rest on the assumption that heliocentrism is true. Always amusing being lectured on science by science illiterates.
@TheFallibleFiend the Universe is much smaller than they tell you. The Universe is only about 72,250 earths in circumference in my studies. There are seven spheres, and all of the stars and planets are in the first three spheres. it is only requires for the third sphere to go around the earth once a day, not the four upper spheres.
if i'm wrong, show me the scientific proof that the speed of light is even a fraction of what they claim it is. i accept science above scripture if its proven.
@TheFallibleFiend yes read a science book as blindly as religious people blindly read the bible. thanks but i'll pass on your willfull ignorance. i only accept what science proves, not what the textbook says. they change the textsbooks majorly every fifty years ago. fifty years from now, about half of what is in your text book will be claimed to have been in some way a mistake.
@carlsonap16 You're not the only one making stupid statements that demands I spend time trying to individually prove what others have already done repeatedly. That you are too lazy to do any actual homework on the subject is not a virtue - and that is the real willful ignorance.
@TheFallibleFiend What are you talking about? i'm the one who is saying let's research this to prove who is right. you are the one that is saying blindly accept what the text book says. it is not doing your homework to just on faith accept what the scientists say. they have been wrong so many times, why not on this too? they could be right, but i demand proof beforei accept any position. you clearly do not.
@carlsonap16 I know because unlike you I've actually done my homework. If you really wanted to understand what the universe is and how it works instead of pretending it, you would be studying science instead of apologetics. Go away.
@TheFallibleFiend huh?im talking about science not religion.again,ignorantly studying what someone else claims without evaluating the authenticity of it is not wise but is foolish.im willing to study out the science.your homework consists of opening a textbook that will become obsolete in fifty years and full of contradictions with the evidence.i trust no one but myself. its nice to see someone who trusts others more than themselves; one can always appreciate such a mockery of rational inquiry.
@TheFallibleFiend your argument rests on the speed of light calculated by scientists. they calculate the speed of light by measuring how long light takes to get from the Sun to earth. but the distance between the earth and the sun would be majorly different if Heliocentrism was not true. i'm attempting to design a scientific experiment to prove the speed of light is much smaller than is claimed.
@carlsonap16 Easy to design an experiment to test the speed of light, because we now have satellites orbiting the earth, have two radar signals sent from different locations at different time, and wait for the rebounding signal, time it using a computer (or whatever, but minimise error) from each location, check the distance between the two locations, then you have a triangle, use the cosine rule and you've got the distance, check the times and you get your velocity. Off you go, now.
@Samuelwhatshisface okay i'd like to see the results of a study using the computers. i'd like to see the hardcore data of the satellites. i can only accept the hardcore data
@carlsonap16 I thought you were trying to think of an experiment to measure the speed of light? There's the experiment, if you want the data, then look for a way to do it. If you want to see the results of other experiments measuring the speed of light, try a google search of 'speed of light measurement experiment'. And you don't seem to know much about data... data isn't hardcore, its either reliable or it isn't, and if it isn't, you do the experiment again to get reliable data.
@Samuelwhatshisface well that only works if those that have he satelites are willing to do it. i thought by your description you were implying someone already did it. when i say hardcore, i merely mean unbiased, the pure (or in other words, the raw) data. raw data is good because it leaves out the biases and allows one to make a decision for oneself.
@carlsonap16 Not really, radar doesn't require a participating test subject; it's similar to what speed guns use, and they don't need driver's willingness to participate.
If you honestly think that only raw data is trustworthy, then do you think that matter is made up of atoms? Or that the electron orbits the nucleus? What about the existence of neutrinos? The theories that put a 'bias' on the data are basically just the deductions people have made from raw data.
@carlsonap16 raw data is good if 1) actually understands the analytical / statistical methods sufficiently well, and 2) understands all the conditions and methods of how it was collected - as well as any constraints on the method and conditions.
In the Geocentric Model it is the rotating firmament (something like very dense "ether") that is carrying the sun, planets and the stars round the earth once a day. Such angular travel does not involve the speed of light.
By the way, that the speed of light is a constant may only only be a false assumption because we only measure it while we are on earth ONLY and imagine it to be a constant .
Starlight can be seen by us may even indicate that some "physics" assumptions are wrong all along.
According to my own rough calculations, anything farther from the Earth than Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to circle the
@Ogeronimonominoreg Does any random idea that anyone espouses qualify as "cosmology?" Are there mechanics, Newtonian or otherwise, that explains how the Sun would go around the Earth? Angels?
@TheFallibleFiend From what I understand you can model the sun round the earth just fine. The relationships between objects don't really change, just the description of the forces and how things appear to the observer. If the reference frame is the earth in a rotating universe, then the sun would oscillate above and below the equator (to account for the seasons) in addition to the daily orbit. I don't know what the explanation of the sun's motion is, however. Perhaps "dark energy"? : )
Either objects rotate around the center of the mass like we observed OR the sun rotates around the earth and the planets in our, solar system rotate around the sun and the universe ... well you get the idea
@TheStrayCross You're not making any sense. You don't understand the model.
We observe the sun orbiting the earth and the universe rotating. That's what "frame of reference" means. No one is "having it both ways." It's what we see. In the neo-Tychonic model, the planets do orbit the sun, but the sun orbits the earth. It all works out. It's just a coordinate change. The relationships stay the same because in space motion is relative.
@OgeronimonominoregO Okay again: Frame of reference is good and nice I understand that, as a matter of fact one in school we had to draw different sinus functions but instead of drawing them by hand in a fixed system I drew the normal funktion and changed my system
BUT You can't say "It rotates around center of mass according to newtonion physics and than place the reverence frame on the earth and have the hole system rotate around it since there is nothing beyond the universe we know of
@TheStrayCross The whole universe would be a rotating mass. We would be at the center. Think about this. The earth is said to rotate and that explains why the universe appears to rotate, but that means that if we as observers consider ourselves stationary as in Newtonian absolute space, then the whole universe DOES rotate from WHEREVER the observer is. It's binary: either/or. The only way for it NOT to rotate is if the observer considers himself ALWAYS ROTATING. Does that blow your mind?
@OgeronimonominoregO The main problem with geocentrism is Satellites. Satalites have many different orbits. If geocentrism is true, one type of orbit where the satellite orbits the earth in 24 hours, would seem to be floating in space not moving. Thus earths gravity should be causing these satellites to fall from their orbits, but, they are still there.
Another problem is mass. Larger the mass, the more an object can pull. The Sun contains over 99% of the solar systems mass!
@Cinnarbar No, satellites behave exactly the same. People who argue this don't understand Einstein, Thirring, and Mach. They understood that motion in space is relative. Observation is frame dependent. If physics is not able to explain forces from various frames of reference, then it is not a universal. We could not know that we were right. But if forces are acting between objects, they can be explained in different reciprocal ways that match observations in various frames of reference.
@OgeronimonominoregO Satellites do not behave the same. They have different orbit paths at different hights. The ISS can orbit the earth 16 times per day at 200-235 miles up, but the moon takes over 27 days to orbit the earth once.
Heaveir masses, more gravity so it has more effect on near by objects. Mercury travels at an average of 48 km per second! Earth is 30 km per second. Jupiter has over twice the mass than all of the planets. Jupiter has a moon larger than Mercury, Ganymeade.
@Cinnarbar You're a troll. I was responding to your claim that satellites should behave differently if the earth is the reference frame than if there were an acentric universe or a heliocentric one. You come back with "satellites do not behave the same" as in they have different orbits and velocities.
@OgeronimonominoregO "Your a troll." Why is that agument? You claim I was confused about satellites by stating "People who argue this don't understand Einstein, Thirring, and Mach. They understood that motion in space is relative." But TheFallibeFiend posted bellow "Mach nor Einstein were geocentrist". So how dose this help your argument. I have tried to explain that objects with a greater mass, can pull more. Yes, its gravity. The earth travels around the sun becasue of the suns mass.
@Cinnarbar Einstein (and others) were committed to relativity as a rule rather than as a method. As a method, it is indespensible because there can be no other a prioi approach to motion in space. Einstein would say that geocentrism is as valid as heliocentrism or acentrism. Any true relativst would. A geocentrist would say that since it is valid, they choose that view, just like others choose acentrism. I don't know if it's possible to "prove" because of the nature of forces and motion.
@OgeronimonominoregO The Earth, and other plantes wobbles the sun with its orbit around the Milky Way. Geo-stationary satellites follow the earths rotaion. From the geocentrist point of view, these satellites don't move. They just hover in the air. Obviosly no becasue it is in orbit around the earth. And it looks like their not moving becasue the earth is spinning. If you believe in gravity, what isn't earths gravity pulling them down? You might have herd about the Coriolis effect. Look it up!
@Cinnarbar Look up Thirrings paper on the forces induced by rotating masses. You have to put yourself COMPLETELY into the OTHER frame of refernce. You will find that the forces can be explained as in a mirror image. Coriolis forces are actually effects, not fundamental forces. The rotating mass of the universe would induce coriolis here. Plus, the axis of rotation is the same as the earth's, therefore the satellites behave the same way. In a mirror, your right hand appears to be your left.
@MillionthUsername No. Geostationary saterlites follow earths rotation. From a geocentric point of view, they would look like they hover in the air. Saterlites do need fuel, but the amount of fuel needed to keep the saterlite aloft in a geocentric universe will be too costly. The more fuel you have on board, the more fuel is needed to launch the spacecraft. The Coriolis effect explains moving objects on a spinning surface. Some plantes have this effect too. If they spin, why not the earth?
No, they are launched with rockets and have velocity. They would have to fire retrorockets in order to dissipate that momentum. They are launched against the rotation of the universe and guided to the appropriate orbit designed to balance the forces. This keeps them geosynchronous (with periodic adjustments). They oppose the momentum of the rotating universe with their velocity, appearing to hover over a stationary earth.
@OgeronimonominoregO Then the problem would be the satallites would run of fuel too quickly, from holding their geostationary position. These satellites orbit at a hight of 22,370mi(36,000km), so the orbit is circular becasue is in a high orbit ( Keplers 3rd Law), also they orbit around the equator, for maxium effecienty. I understand from your point of view they would not orbit the earth. This would be too costly, becasue you would need more fuel to launch the excess fuel to keep it stationary.
@Cinnarbar No, there's no difference. When you change frames of reference, you're just describing the same phenomenon from another perspective.
Imagine that you *are* the geo-synch sat without having any previous knowledge of your inertia. To you, the earth does not rotate, but the universe does. How do you explain it? You must say that you are traveling in the opposite direction of the universal rotation, opposing its momentum such that your position remains fixed relative to earth.
@OgeronimonominoregO The problem is gravity. These satellites need to keep aloft to prevent a firery re-entery. I would first think that the universe is spinning, but I would begin to think about gravity. Why isn't the spacecraft falling? Then I would realise its not the universe thats is spinning, but I am orbiting the earth (falling to earth without getting closer). The earths gravity is pulling me around. That is why the spacecraft is not falling to earth. Dose this help you?
@Cinnarbar No, of course it doesn't "help" me because you are not considering the effect of the mass of the universe rotating around you with you at the center. You are failing to visualize the frame of reference. In order to do this, you must allow yourself to see that if the earth is stationary, then the effects you attribute to the rotating earth are now attributed to the rotating mass of the universe. You are on the inside of large rotating sphere rather than on the outside of a small one.
@OgeronimonominoregO So again the problem is gravity. The object with the most mass, has the most gravity and the greatest pull. The earth is 0.000003 solar masses. All plantes orbit a stars. Why is the earth so special for it not to orbit its star? There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach on earth. But for some reason they all move around the earth? Why not Mars? Its day is almost the same as the earth. You could make the same geocentric claim on mars.
@Cinnarbar If the earth sits motionless at the barycenter of the rotating mass of the universe, then the gravity of the sun would not be strong enough to move it out of position.
If the earth is not moving, then it is not a planet.
And asking why X is here while Y is over there is not a question of physics.
And yes, without being able to resolve the problem of relative motion - especially rotation - you could say Mars was the center.
@OgeronimonominoregO "If the earth sits motionless at the barycenter of the rotating mass of the universe, then the gravity of the sun would not be strong enough to move it out of position." I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The universal mass is not strong enough to prevent the earth falling to the sun. The universe is increadibly spread out. Gravity looses its effect with distance. Earth orbits the sun because the sun has more mass. Earth falls towards the sun without getting closer.
@Cinnarbar The massive rotating sphere of the universe exerts a centrifugal force on its interior. The earth is at the center where there is no net force since the forces balance to stabilize it. The sun is orbiting that stable center at 93 million miles out, so is subject to a variance in the net forces acting upon it. Earth's stability in this model is due entirely to its position. You have to look beyond isolated bodies and consider the sum of forces for each model.
@OgeronimonominoregO True that there is are a few acting forces on the sun. 1 is the centre (hub) of the Milky Way, and 2 is the wobble casued by the planets. The Sun orbits the Milky Way traviling 7 billion km per year and it takes about 225-250 million years to complete its orbit. The Andromeda Galxay is moving towards the Milky Way. But becasue both galaxys have almost the same mass, that means both galaxies will be moving towards each other. Gravity is not simple, it is very complicated.
@Cinnarbar People argue that distant masses have no effect, but then they change their minds when it comes to the sun and the Milky Way! : ) In the Big Bang model, they have to invent mass and energy which cannot be detected in order to make it work. So you're right, it is very complicated to try to comprehend at once the sum of forces acting on objects in space. We still don't know how gravity works. Science is still in its infancy.
@OgeronimonominoregO I don' t know anyone who argues that distant objects have no effect. However, gravitation does not have infinite velocity. Gravitation moves no faster than light. Things that are billions of ly would produce effects more slowly than objects millions of ly away, etc. The immediate stuff, like in our galaxy would produce a much quicker effect. Have you ever solved a single physics problem from a text book?
@TheFallibleFiend Try arguing for a geocentric model of the universe, then you'll run into boatloads of people who say that distant masses have no effect. People say that to me all the time. I guess they forgot what they read in their textbooks. They'll tell you that gravity is weak and quote the inverse square law because they want to treat all forces as local to avoid geocentrism. But then you point out that the whole solar system is being pulled at great speed by objects many l/y away.
@OgeronimonominoregO "We still don't know how gravity works. Science is still in its infancy." Absolutly true. We don't know what is the casue for gravity or mass. No one is able to fit gravity in with the rest of the universal forces. But however, the mathmatics of gravity and mass is very accurate. Sir Issac Newtons publication "Principia Mathematica" explains why geocentrism is superseded. Einstein reviewed Newtons theory of Gravity and applied his Theory of General Relativity.
@Cinnarbar How does Newton's work do away with geocentrism? It is precisely due to the current concept of gravity that unseen matter is inferred. How can you know that a theory is sound when it requires such fixes? Are we inventing stuff we can't detect just to save failed theories? I don't know. But if you allow for unseen gravitational sources comprising upwards of 80% of the universe, you cannot disallow geocentrism because dark matter can be placed where it "needs" to be in that model too.
@OgeronimonominoregO "dark matter can be placed where it "needs" to be in that model " No. Dark Matter has been located in some areas of the of the Milky Way. I understand what you mean by a even gravitational balance in all directions that allows earth to be static. (like if you were able to be inside earth, the gravity in all directions will nullify). But why earth? Would it be more logical that the Milky Ways 'hub' is the centre, instead of a small pale blue dot on the side of the galaxy?
@Cinnarbar What do you mean, "no"? No to what? I didn't say anything against observations which confirm the existence of mass that is otherwise undetected via radiation. What they do with this concept of dark matter though is just assume that it is wherever it needs to be to make their model work. I questioned that, and the fact that they say it makes up the vast majority of matter in the universe. But if it does, then it fits with a geocentric model as well.
@OgeronimonominoregO "it fits with a geocentric model as well" That is what I'm saying no too. As I have been trying to explain on many scales, gravity quickly loses its effect with distance. True, its not absolute zero, but it is very weak. The LIGO is a lab in Louisiana that can detect gravitational waves from distant objects, such as double pulsars. But the gravity from these objects are so weak they have yet to detect any gravitation waves. But they can detect moving trains and aircraft.
@Cinnarbar If gravity from distant objects is so weak as to be almost null, then what colossal unknown force is causing the entire solar system to orbit the galactic center at 568,000 mph? Seems to me that it requires a little bit of force to accelerate suns and planets through space at such a speed. What is this force and where does it come from? Does "LIGO" detect it? Perhaps the moving trains and aircraft are hurling us through space? : )
@OgeronimonominoregO Yes relative motion. If earth is in the center you will not observe relative motion. And I know about geostationary parallax. If you place yourself in the center of a sphere with two points in line with each other, no matter how you rotate the sphere, you will only see one point. Only when you move inside the sphere will you see the two points.
Sorry if I missed it. How can you prevent a stationary satellite from falling to earth while aginst the universal spin?
@Cinnarbar The "sphere" isn't just rotating. It's oscillating. It seems you failed to plug the observation of stellar parallax into the geocentric model. Relative motion means you can describe all observations from any vantage point and the relationships don't change, only the view.
Geosynch sats oppose the universal rotation with momentum from rockets in order to appear to be "hovering". If they did not, then they'd "orbit".
@OgeronimonominoregO Einstiens theory of general relativity is based on the idea that the laws of science should be the same for all observers, no matter how they are moving. How can we observe stars travelling faster than the speed of light?
@Cinnarbar The stars appear to be traveling faster than light because the earth is at the center and is not moving while the whole universe spins around it. The stars merely "see" a rotating earth and themselves as maintaining their positions. They are not traveling faster than light according to any reference point in their frame. They neither see themselves accelerating nor changing position, even with respect to us. This is just a characteristic of a rotating universe.
@OgeronimonominoregO Ok. So the space between the stars are rotating and the stars and gravitaional force moves along with the fabric of space. Is this correct? If so, why the space earth occupies isn't spining with the fabric of space? Would the surface of the earth twist with it?
@OgeronimonominoregO "They are not traveling faster than light according to any reference point in their frame." This is a restatement of the obvious. Nothing is moving in its own reference frame. If the Earth is indeed at the center of the universe with stars rotating about it, then those stars don't just appear to be moving FTL, they ARE moving FTL.
@TheFallibleFiend If it is the nature of the whole universe to rotate, then what is it traveling against? There is nothing outside the universe, no perspective to say, "Wow, look at that thing go!". It is only from a non-moving point within that this can be detected at all. We, the non-moving, are the anomaly in the picture. If we could then be rotated to match the universal rotation, all perception of FTL disappears. That perception is still frame dependent since there are 2 possible frames.
@OgeronimonominoregO "If it is the nature of the whole universe to rotate, then what is it traveling against? " It's rotating about itself. Rotation does not necessarily mean "rotating like a disk." If the Earth rotates, the actuality at least of the FTL as described in this video goes away. Einstein's special relativity only applies where there is no acceleration (rotation is acceleration) ... this is why I want to check the context of the quote you supplied.
@TheFallibleFiend Special relativity doesn't apply, so FTL is a moot point. I think the point of the quote was to apply general relativity to the question of cosmology. Einstein said that it was just transferring to a different coordinate system. The physics are equivalent, I think, because a rotational frame will have the fictitious forces while the mirrored (opposite) frame will not - and vice versa if you switch them. Rotation reduces to a binary perspective.
@OgeronimonominoregO Astronomers are not stupid. If geocentrism has a possibility, it will be publish as a scientific artical and exposed to the public in astronomy magazines. I read the Austrlian Sky and Telescope monthly for six years, and there is yet to be any mention geocentrism is remotly possible. I admit I am not an expert astronomer, but I don't need to be to debunk geocentrism. You fail to explain parallax, fail to explain geostationary orbit and fail to debunk the theory of gravity.
He clearly disagrees. Random people on the Internet who have never taken physics, never read any physics texts, never solved any physics problems, never read any primary research, who appear confused by the most elementary methods and results have a vastly deeper understanding of physics than mere astronomers who are brainwashed dupes.
@TheFallibleFiend Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say astronomers are stupid. I did take physics, just not in college, which is what you asked me. I have read physics texts. You asked me if I read college textbooks. I have read some primary research papers.
I did not claim that my understanding of physics was "vastly deeper" than anybody! I merely read what prominent people like Einstein, Thirring, Mach, Hubble, etc. have said about relative motion WRT cosmology.
@Cinnarbar I didn't fail to explain parallax. Parallax reveals a relative motion. Do you understand relative motion? How did you determine that the star field was not moving?
I explained geostationary orbit to you. You never responded to what I said.
I was not trying to "debunk the theory of gravity". There exists a force which we call gravity. I questioned the extent of our knowledge of what causes it, etc.
@OgeronimonominoregO In Paris, there was an experiment done, the Foucault Pendulum named after Léon Foucault , to show the earth rotates. The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to oscillate in any vertical plane. The direction along which the pendulum swings appears to rotate with time because of Earth's daily rotation. This is because the plane of the pendulum's swing, like a gyroscope, tends to keep a fixed direction in space, while the Earth rotates under it.
@OgeronimonominoregO So are you saying that a 5kg swinging ball (Foucault pendulumcan) is able to detect the strength of the universal spinning mass but the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (is so sensitive it can detect moving trains) is not able too? Can you explain why LIGO is not able to detect these gravitaional forces? Because what I have reasearch, its becasue the gravitational forces from distant objects is too weak. They have been working on 2 pulsars in Canis Major.
@Cinnarbar Obviously you are confusing force with net force. You are taking the existing net force from gravity acting upon us for granted. Apparently LIGO is trying to detect new forces which require some sort of variation from the norm, hence "gravitiational waves".
What the Foucault pendulum detects is an effect of the rotating mass of the universe, not gravity per se.
@Cinnarbar A rotating mass induces secondary forces like the Coriolis force. A rotating universe is analogous to a single rotating body. It induces such effects on its interior as well.
@OgeronimonominoregO But how can the rotaing universe cause the Coriolis force? Dose there need to be a substance/force acting to cause this effect? When I think of wooded bead in a sphere of liquid, I can understand the liquid causing the Coriolis force which would place the bead in the center of the sphere. But I thought empty space dose not contain a substance to cause this effect. Is there another force at work?
@Cinnarbar The force that causes the effect is the inertia of the rotating body, i.e., there is a differential between two reference frames - one rotating, one not - and thus we see the effect. The geocentric frame is just the mirror image. Since the inertia ascribed to the earth can also be ascribed to the universe, I'm not sure if the question of what space is matters here since your rotating earth is referencing the same "empty" space and "fixed" background to claim it is the one moving.
@OgeronimonominoregO I was just wondering about this question. If you were at the edge of the visible universe (ie close to 12 billion ly) you would not be able to see the sun nor the earth. Nor the effects of their gravity. So the question would be is how long has the universe been rotating around this point in space from your perspective? And would the universe continue to spin even if the sun becomes a red giant that could swollow earth in is orbit?
@OgeronimonominoregO This is hard for me to imagine. Think of a object, that is the outer shell of a sphere, that pulls gravity equaly in all directions. Inside is a hollow vacuum with a object like earth (water, atmosphere,gravity etc.). How would the rotation of the outer shell effect the atmosphere of the earth like object with only a vacuum between? What are these secondary forces?
@Cinnarbar Not sure what you're asking. Gravity is a force which acts over a distance through "vacuum" as far as we know. A rotating mass has gravity. When it rotates, secondary forces or effects will result. I really can't explain exactly how the force of gravity is transmitted. Perhaps there is a universal medium. I don't know.
@OgeronimonominoregO I know gravity travles at the speed of light (180,000mph). For example if the sun suddenly vanished, no one on earth would know until 8 minutes later. The earth would still orbit the empty space because the fabric of space-time will also take 8min. Do you believe in Einsteins Universe? Since its finite in space and constant in time, it can rotate at less than the speed of light everywhere. But however the evidence of increased inflation dismisses the Cosmological Constant.
@OgeronimonominoregO Some examples of how weak the gravity from distant objects. The gravitional force, on earth, of when all the planets in the solar system is aligned, is equivianlt to the gravitational force of a jumbo passenger jet flying very low. Jupiter, dispite having twice the mass of all the plantes, effects earths tides by the thickness of a human hair. I hope the large Hadron Collider will give us both an expliantion for the casue/s of gravition and mass.
@OgeronimonominoregO Depending where you live in the US, On the 20th/21st of December there will be a lunar ecllipse. With US CST, the Penumbral (P1) stage starts at 11:27pm. Total eclipce at 12:32am. Now you believe the moon moves with,a bit faster than the stars. Pay attention to the shadow with the P1 stage to total. You will notice the moon is going backwards into earths shadow (west to east). The sun movement dosn't count becasue the moon is going faster than the sun from a geocentric view.
@Cinnarbar The lunar eclipse is interesting, but it has nothing to do with the topic.
We're talking about a cosmology here, not earth/sun or earth/moon. The relationships between objects in the solar system which we observe are all the same. No one expects to see the moon behaving any differently than it has. Thanks for sharing the information on the times and dates though.
@OgeronimonominoregO I am a bit confused on your views of a geocentic universe becasue there are many ideas. From a cosmolical point of view, the agument would lie with the star angles. Astonomers can mesure the slight angles of the star positions from opposite sides of the sun, and by using trigonometry, they have the distance to the star. But if all the stars move in the same direction at the same speed, why would the position of stars mesure at a different angle?
@Cinnarbar I explained it before. It's very simple. If the earth is considered at rest, then the universe as a whole is rotating around it. When you talk about seasonal star positions, your interpretation that this proves an earth in motion is based solely on the assumption that the earth is in motion in the first place. If you assume a motionless earth, then it's the stars that change position.
@OgeronimonominoregO No. These angles are done accuratly at the excact position. The differance in the angles confirms that the earth changers its position. Astronomers use the principle of stella parallax to measure distances to celestial objects. If earth was stationary inside a spinning ball, we should be unable to use stella parallax. If you put two peas on a dinner plate, the angle will between wil stay the same if you spin it. But if you move from left to right, the angle will change.
@OgeronimonominoregO If the earth was at the centre of a rotaing universe, the angles between the stars will stay the same. You can put to dots on a circle, and the angle mesured from the centre will stay the same no matter how you spin it. But however we have parallax with the background stars. Its only a very slight angle (arcs) but it is mesurable and observed. You can mesure the angle between two stars in June, then in December the angle is smaller, then back again next June.
@Cinnarbar Precession means that it "wobbles" like a top. If the earth is considered at rest, then we model the rest of the universe as having an absolute motion that we can describe. You just plug the same observations into that model. This is something that just has to be grasped. There's really no arguing about it.
@OgeronimonominoregO No. Even if the universe wobbles like a top (like a plastic ball with the earth inside), it still dosn't change the angle between two points. You can spin the sphere in any direction an you not see parallax. A sphere is just a three dimentional circle. The angles will only change if the earth moves.
I would also like to thank you for writing back. You do have a good grasp on the subject. I am just trying to explain why many astronomers have dismissed geocentrism.
@Cinnarbar Once again, the observed motions are relative. When parallax is actually measured from earth, it is the stars that change position. Otherwise you would have no measurement at all. This is then just interpreted as if the earth was moving and not the stars.
@OgeronimonominoregO You haven't had a course in physics. Have you ever read an actual textbook - not a popular book on physics, but an actual textbook on the subject? Have you ever solved any mathematical physics problems?
@OgeronimonominoregO Many satellites do need fuel to keep their postions (mainly the lower orbits) so that is why there are planing to build a Space Elevator. The technology is in progress, and they have already have the ultra stong carbon tubing for the elevator. Imagine a long carbon line streached out, attached to the earth at one end, and the other end (a counter wieght) in space. This will save money on fuel. The counter wiegt orbits the earth, & is also flung outwards by earths rotation!!
@TheFallibleFiend It doesn't matter from the standpoint of physics. It matters when it comes to cosmology, which is more like history and philosophy than physics per se. Geocentrism would be just as valid or more valid than Big Bang which is riddled with absurdities - all to avoid the earth occupying a special place in the universe.
The dominant view now is acentrism. Heliocentrism is an anachronism. Those guys understood that "proof" is elusive, that it's really perspective and choice.
@OgeronimonominoregO We're far down one spiral. We can approximate the center of mass of our galaxy and it ain't us. Even in our galaxy alone, accepting Earth as center is stupid. Geocentrism is not "just as valid."
@TheFallibleFiend You left out the whole rest of the universe. If the earth is stationary, then the whole universe is rotating. The Milky Way rotates with it. You're talking about the mass of the galaxy and ignoring the mass of the universe. What you just said is the same as heliocentrism. You just gave us the view of the local galaxy vis-a-vis itself. Your frame of reference is local. No one said the earth was the center of the galaxy.
@MillionthUsername I know what I said. I left it out to make the argument easy to understand. If the same forces are at play, then then they all just happen to balance out around the Earth? Things are moving all over the place and all the time, but at the same time - they balance out around the Earth.
And by the way, I challenge you to find a quote from Einstein that says geocentrism is "just as valid."
@TheFallibleFiend "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system 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 coordinate systems." --- "The Evolution of Physics," Einstein & Infeld, 1938.
@TheFallibleFiend Sure it is. That's why some then go ahead and proclaim that there is no center. At least methodologically, you can say that everywhere is the center, or that this or that place is the center, or there is no center.
Einstein is saying that the controversy was meaningless. Honestly, I don't think we are able to discern any more yet since this whole question has been shoved aside. People are under a false impression that something was "proven" when it wasn't.
@OgeronimonominoregO Imagine a universe with the same laws of physics that we currently have and only two large objects ... an Earth-sized object and a Sol-sized object. In that universe, too, there would be no preferred reference frame. And, yet, if the same laws of physics applied, asserting that the Earth clone was the center would be inconsistent with the understanding of the laws of gravitation. For the life of me, it seems you guys are making a trivial discovery of math and misusing it.
@TheFallibleFiend I never said the earth was the center of your hypothetical universe. You just posted it here, and I just read it. What does it have to do with me?
If you are saying that the two objects comprise that whole universe, then you can talk about the center of mass of that sun/earth system being the center of that universe since you don't see anything else. What does that have to do with the universe that we see?
@OgeronimonominoregO Interestingly, that same partial quote is on a number of geocentrist sites, but none of them include the surrounding text. Big red flag for me. Next time I'm at the book store, I'm going to see if I can find that book.
@TheFallibleFiend If people think for themselves, it isn't necessary to rely upon quotes of some perceived authority figure. That quote just illustrates that Einstein believed his own theory. Others did too. Today, it seems more like lip service.
I see it as a method (a starting assumption), though, not as a rule.
@OgeronimonominoregO If people think for themselves, nearly everything you've said is nonsense and relies on a fundamental understanding of the subject. You seem to have made the kind of mistakes that are common with those who haven't actually ever taken a course in physics. I've read Einstein - not quotes of his, but his actual works - admittedly it was decades ago, but it's more than most of you guys appear to have done. The quote has to potential to at least tell me that ...
@OgeronimonominoregO .... that you aren't just making stuff up. I'll look up the actual quote when I get a chance. I go to the bookstore or library every few months. I'll check on the quote. My suspicion is that it's completely out of context (all the hallmarks are there), but I'll try to be open. BTW, would you know what page it's on? (an actual citation would make it easier to locate.)
I would appreciate it if you would cut the gratuitous condescension of "you people" and "everything you've said is nonsense," and "making stuff up, "and acting like I'm scouring books in order to scalp quotes because I have some devious purpose.
YOU *challenged* ME to find a quote from Einstein, so I went looking for it!
Or did that slip your mind?
How about a "Thanks. That's interesting," instead of needless insults?
@OgeronimonominoregO Thanks. That's interesting. I'm still going to look it up. Creationists do make stuff up and quote out of context. Also, I thought I asked the other guy for the quote and not yet, but that's quibbling. I am very grateful for the quote, regardless of whether the implied meaning is correct. I don't think you personally are scouring books for quotes. Most don't have that kind of energy.
@TheFallibleFiend "then they all just happen to balance out around the Earth?"
They all just happen to balance out wherever you go. That's the point. Where is the observer? What does he see? Is he moving and the universe is still, or is it vice versa? How does he know? Is there a preferred reference frame in space? Einstein's answer was no.
Wherever you go, the things "moving all over the place" keep their *relative*
@OgeronimonominoregO I'm sure there are kinematic equations; that's not the same thing as saying the same forces work the same no matter what frame you're in. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never taken physics.
@OgeronimonominoregO I college physics in HS and I took modern physics in college (relativity and QM). It's been a long time, but I took the classes and did very well. I also took engineering classes on statics and dynamics among others. So I take it you've studied dynamics in university physics? Because I'm not detecting that.
@MillionthUsername Gravity looses its effect with distance. The Moon has a greater effect on our tides than the sun. The Moon is 0.13 earth masses while the earth is 0.000003 solar masses. The Moon is about 300,000km, and the sun is 149.6 million. The Milky Way has alot dark matter which is very heavy. Many galaxies don't have as much dark matter. We live on the edge of our galaxy, or on the edge of a dinner plate. You can only spin a dinner plate from the centre.
@Cinnarbar But when we observe a stationary earth and rotating universe, the earth appears at the center of it, thus being its center of mass. The orbiting sun could not move it unless it could overcome the inertia of the rotating mass of the universe. : )
See, you have to stay within one frame of reference at a time. The "solar system" does not account for the rest of the universe. When you move to that larger ultimate frame, "solar system" is superseded.
@OgeronimonominoregO@OgeronimonominoregO Here is an experiment you can do from your own home. Look to the west after sunset on December 8th, 2010. Close to the horizon you would see the moon at a waxing crescent. Now each evening at the same time, watch the moons position. You will notice it will move upwards, moving from west to east. This shows you the orbit of the moon and helps you realise the earth is spinning. After about 27-28 days, the moon will be back at the same location.
There's no such thing as geocentrism. It is impossible for the earth to be at the center of the solar system, milky way and universe - EVEN in every geocentrist model imaginable. Fact.
Venus single-handedly kills all models except Brahe model. And if you draw the Brahe model, you'll easily see that the sun is ALWAYS at the center AS IT REVOLVES THE EARTH each year. This means the univ orbit shifts.
This does NOT mean the earth cannot be motionless nor the sun cannot revolve the earth.
can you apply your calculation to the other galaxies??How about the rotaion of the other galaxies watched by télescop...it is seemed that the stars move with million times the light speed ...i suggest that the light is not a SUFFISANT proof..because the great masses can bend the light thousands times in very long distances with a huge stars and black holes....and it can draw any modifible shap as te time pass...
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
This is a common misconception. What relativity actually states is that something cannot /accelerate/ beyond the speed of light and in fact, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something to c (thus a practical impossibility). It says nothing about things already travelling beyond c and such particles have been theorized.
you are true if we dont know that the light has its mass and it cannot get a straight trajectory as you think...from this distance it can draw any modifiable shape before it can arrive to the earth ..i advise you to try find one proof of the earth moving from the earth and don t escape to unknwon universe..i need only one proof from the earth ???
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
@TheFallibleFiend .the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
@TheFallibleFiend .the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
I don't no much about what it is that geocentrists claim. But do they say that all the stars are the same distance from earth or that they all happen to orbit the earth at the exact speed needed to make it seem as if the are static (relative to each other)
@tmcthree They don't all make the exact claims. Some of them at least claim that that their calculations are entirely consistent with existing calculations for distances, rates, etc. This means, of course, that stars are not all the same distance from the Earth. If they were the same distance from the Earth, there would be a lot of other inconsistencies introduced.
@TheFallibleFiend So they must be proposing that the billions of stars all at different distances, just happen to each move at such a speed and in such a way so as to appear static, relative to each other.
How can they possibly say that with a straight face?
What about stars at the poles that don't appear to move?
@tmcthree It's unlikely they understand the mathematics well enough to comprehend the obvious consequences were reality to correspond to their beliefs.
Last I ever heard, I'm pretty sure, that geocentrists believe the earth rotates on it's axis, but doesn't revolve around the sun. I forget the name, maybe Tycho Brahe or something, but I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't have a light speed conundrum.
There are different kinds of geocentrism, but most of them are Biblically based and those fellows do not believe the Earth rotates. They don't understand enough about math to understand that it present an SOl problem.
Well, the expansion of space itself occurs at faster-than-light speed, and so many galaxies and stars are moving away from us at many times the speed of light because they're carried along by the expansion of the universe.
A geocentrist could argue that the fabric of space itself is rotating about the Earth, but then you should be able to see alternating blue and red-shift on opposite sides of the sky. Never mind how to explain why space is rotating in the first place or what started it...
A good geocentrist would state that the Speed of Light might be as false as heliocentrism, or tell that the stars are not truly that distant; they might say that their distance is erroneously calculated because of the redshift due to their orbital revolution around the son, and even there could be no true "limit" to speed because of the Relativity being a false theory. In other words: a geocentrist would never change his mind after these weak studies.
A good geocentrist is still an idiot and not worth trying to convince. On the other hand, the napkin math herein described is sufficient to help those who are not idiots understand the consequences of geocentrism; i.e. that one must reject relativity and a lot of other well-known and well-understood things to adopt it. This vid only shows that the non-geocentrist math is consistent.
@reuelt01 Congratulations, you managed to compile a paragraph made entirely out of false statements!
kyekire 5 days ago
i'll give you one thing though: your video is a good refutation against some geocentric claims. if the speed of light is correct as you claim it, then your video is correct.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
The problem with your argument is that the speed of light that heliocentrists claim rests entirely on their belief that heliocentrism is true. at the very least, if geocentrism is true, the speed of light is 365.25 times slower than is currently believed. there are also i am sure many other issues that heliocentrists have not acounted for. it is entirely circular logic argument and ultimately fails. ignorance is bliss they say. stop blindly trusting and do your own science.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 Even if the speed of light is hundreds of times slower than currently believed, galaxies orbit at millions are still moving much faster than the speed of light. Nobody can do "their own science" on every topic in every subject. Nor does the argument I presented rest on the assumption that heliocentrism is true. Always amusing being lectured on science by science illiterates.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend the Universe is much smaller than they tell you. The Universe is only about 72,250 earths in circumference in my studies. There are seven spheres, and all of the stars and planets are in the first three spheres. it is only requires for the third sphere to go around the earth once a day, not the four upper spheres.
if i'm wrong, show me the scientific proof that the speed of light is even a fraction of what they claim it is. i accept science above scripture if its proven.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 In your "studies." You are boring. Read a science book. Go away.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend yes read a science book as blindly as religious people blindly read the bible. thanks but i'll pass on your willfull ignorance. i only accept what science proves, not what the textbook says. they change the textsbooks majorly every fifty years ago. fifty years from now, about half of what is in your text book will be claimed to have been in some way a mistake.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 fifty years or so*
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 You're not the only one making stupid statements that demands I spend time trying to individually prove what others have already done repeatedly. That you are too lazy to do any actual homework on the subject is not a virtue - and that is the real willful ignorance.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend What are you talking about? i'm the one who is saying let's research this to prove who is right. you are the one that is saying blindly accept what the text book says. it is not doing your homework to just on faith accept what the scientists say. they have been wrong so many times, why not on this too? they could be right, but i demand proof beforei accept any position. you clearly do not.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend others have proven it? how do you know?
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 I know because unlike you I've actually done my homework. If you really wanted to understand what the universe is and how it works instead of pretending it, you would be studying science instead of apologetics. Go away.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFallibleFiend huh?im talking about science not religion.again,ignorantly studying what someone else claims without evaluating the authenticity of it is not wise but is foolish.im willing to study out the science.your homework consists of opening a textbook that will become obsolete in fifty years and full of contradictions with the evidence.i trust no one but myself. its nice to see someone who trusts others more than themselves; one can always appreciate such a mockery of rational inquiry.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@TheFallibleFiend your argument rests on the speed of light calculated by scientists. they calculate the speed of light by measuring how long light takes to get from the Sun to earth. but the distance between the earth and the sun would be majorly different if Heliocentrism was not true. i'm attempting to design a scientific experiment to prove the speed of light is much smaller than is claimed.
carlsonap16 3 months ago
@carlsonap16 Easy to design an experiment to test the speed of light, because we now have satellites orbiting the earth, have two radar signals sent from different locations at different time, and wait for the rebounding signal, time it using a computer (or whatever, but minimise error) from each location, check the distance between the two locations, then you have a triangle, use the cosine rule and you've got the distance, check the times and you get your velocity. Off you go, now.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 month ago
@Samuelwhatshisface okay i'd like to see the results of a study using the computers. i'd like to see the hardcore data of the satellites. i can only accept the hardcore data
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 I thought you were trying to think of an experiment to measure the speed of light? There's the experiment, if you want the data, then look for a way to do it. If you want to see the results of other experiments measuring the speed of light, try a google search of 'speed of light measurement experiment'. And you don't seem to know much about data... data isn't hardcore, its either reliable or it isn't, and if it isn't, you do the experiment again to get reliable data.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 month ago
@Samuelwhatshisface well that only works if those that have he satelites are willing to do it. i thought by your description you were implying someone already did it. when i say hardcore, i merely mean unbiased, the pure (or in other words, the raw) data. raw data is good because it leaves out the biases and allows one to make a decision for oneself.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 thanks for the suggestion i will look into it and see if there is a way it can be done or if other experiments have already been done.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Not really, radar doesn't require a participating test subject; it's similar to what speed guns use, and they don't need driver's willingness to participate.
If you honestly think that only raw data is trustworthy, then do you think that matter is made up of atoms? Or that the electron orbits the nucleus? What about the existence of neutrinos? The theories that put a 'bias' on the data are basically just the deductions people have made from raw data.
Samuelwhatshisface 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 raw data is good if 1) actually understands the analytical / statistical methods sufficiently well, and 2) understands all the conditions and methods of how it was collected - as well as any constraints on the method and conditions.
TheFallibleFiend 1 month ago
In the Geocentric Model it is the rotating firmament (something like very dense "ether") that is carrying the sun, planets and the stars round the earth once a day. Such angular travel does not involve the speed of light.
By the way, that the speed of light is a constant may only only be a false assumption because we only measure it while we are on earth ONLY and imagine it to be a constant .
Starlight can be seen by us may even indicate that some "physics" assumptions are wrong all along.
reuelt01 3 months ago
@reuelt01 Everything you typed is nonsense.
TheFallibleFiend 3 months ago
@reuelt01
This is the biggest cluster of unqualified gargabe I ever came across! Embarrassing!
pelikan88 3 months ago
According to my own rough calculations, anything farther from the Earth than Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light in order to circle the
Earth in twenty-four hours.
NaturalBornSkeptic 1 year ago
The only thing that can travel faster than c is baby Jesus on a raptor.
dontevenknow 1 year ago
If the whole universe is rotating as a mass, then I don't
see what the problem is. Relative motion of and distance
between bodies doesn't change in this model. It's just
a different cosmology. Stars aren't traversing local space
in the model; the whole universe is rotating relative to
earth.
Every cosmology has implications which seem counter-intuitive,
bizarre even, and require lots of tinkering and just-so arguments to
support. Consider "dark matter" and "dark energy" for example.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@Ogeronimonominoreg Does any random idea that anyone espouses qualify as "cosmology?" Are there mechanics, Newtonian or otherwise, that explains how the Sun would go around the Earth? Angels?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Question:
Compared to what exactly is the universe rotating? :>
TheStrayCross 1 year ago
@TheStrayCross From the reference frame of the earth, the universe
appears to rotate around it. If you go out at night and look at the stars, you
will see that they move across the sky over time relative to the earth.
Physically, this would be explained as the universe rotating
around its center of mass, with the earth located at that center.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Ahm.... no
You can't have it both ways
Either objects rotate around the center of the mass like we observed OR the sun rotates around the earth and the planets in our, solar system rotate around the sun and the universe ... well you get the idea
It simply doesnt work that way
TheStrayCross 1 year ago
@TheStrayCross You're not making any sense. You don't understand the model.
We observe the sun orbiting the earth and the universe rotating. That's what "frame of reference" means. No one is "having it both ways." It's what we see. In the neo-Tychonic model, the planets do orbit the sun, but the sun orbits the earth. It all works out. It's just a coordinate change. The relationships stay the same because in space motion is relative.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Okay again: Frame of reference is good and nice I understand that, as a matter of fact one in school we had to draw different sinus functions but instead of drawing them by hand in a fixed system I drew the normal funktion and changed my system
BUT You can't say "It rotates around center of mass according to newtonion physics and than place the reverence frame on the earth and have the hole system rotate around it since there is nothing beyond the universe we know of
TheStrayCross 1 year ago
@TheStrayCross The whole universe would be a rotating mass. We would be at the center. Think about this. The earth is said to rotate and that explains why the universe appears to rotate, but that means that if we as observers consider ourselves stationary as in Newtonian absolute space, then the whole universe DOES rotate from WHEREVER the observer is. It's binary: either/or. The only way for it NOT to rotate is if the observer considers himself ALWAYS ROTATING. Does that blow your mind?
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO The main problem with geocentrism is Satellites. Satalites have many different orbits. If geocentrism is true, one type of orbit where the satellite orbits the earth in 24 hours, would seem to be floating in space not moving. Thus earths gravity should be causing these satellites to fall from their orbits, but, they are still there.
Another problem is mass. Larger the mass, the more an object can pull. The Sun contains over 99% of the solar systems mass!
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar No, satellites behave exactly the same. People who argue this don't understand Einstein, Thirring, and Mach. They understood that motion in space is relative. Observation is frame dependent. If physics is not able to explain forces from various frames of reference, then it is not a universal. We could not know that we were right. But if forces are acting between objects, they can be explained in different reciprocal ways that match observations in various frames of reference.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Satellites do not behave the same. They have different orbit paths at different hights. The ISS can orbit the earth 16 times per day at 200-235 miles up, but the moon takes over 27 days to orbit the earth once.
Heaveir masses, more gravity so it has more effect on near by objects. Mercury travels at an average of 48 km per second! Earth is 30 km per second. Jupiter has over twice the mass than all of the planets. Jupiter has a moon larger than Mercury, Ganymeade.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar You're a troll. I was responding to your claim that satellites should behave differently if the earth is the reference frame than if there were an acentric universe or a heliocentric one. You come back with "satellites do not behave the same" as in they have different orbits and velocities.
And, yes, gravity exists.
Now get lost because you're not worth my time.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "Your a troll." Why is that agument? You claim I was confused about satellites by stating "People who argue this don't understand Einstein, Thirring, and Mach. They understood that motion in space is relative." But TheFallibeFiend posted bellow "Mach nor Einstein were geocentrist". So how dose this help your argument. I have tried to explain that objects with a greater mass, can pull more. Yes, its gravity. The earth travels around the sun becasue of the suns mass.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Einstein (and others) were committed to relativity as a rule rather than as a method. As a method, it is indespensible because there can be no other a prioi approach to motion in space. Einstein would say that geocentrism is as valid as heliocentrism or acentrism. Any true relativst would. A geocentrist would say that since it is valid, they choose that view, just like others choose acentrism. I don't know if it's possible to "prove" because of the nature of forces and motion.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO The Earth, and other plantes wobbles the sun with its orbit around the Milky Way. Geo-stationary satellites follow the earths rotaion. From the geocentrist point of view, these satellites don't move. They just hover in the air. Obviosly no becasue it is in orbit around the earth. And it looks like their not moving becasue the earth is spinning. If you believe in gravity, what isn't earths gravity pulling them down? You might have herd about the Coriolis effect. Look it up!
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Look up Thirrings paper on the forces induced by rotating masses. You have to put yourself COMPLETELY into the OTHER frame of refernce. You will find that the forces can be explained as in a mirror image. Coriolis forces are actually effects, not fundamental forces. The rotating mass of the universe would induce coriolis here. Plus, the axis of rotation is the same as the earth's, therefore the satellites behave the same way. In a mirror, your right hand appears to be your left.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername It's a lot easier to hand wave than it is to do the math.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername No. Geostationary saterlites follow earths rotation. From a geocentric point of view, they would look like they hover in the air. Saterlites do need fuel, but the amount of fuel needed to keep the saterlite aloft in a geocentric universe will be too costly. The more fuel you have on board, the more fuel is needed to launch the spacecraft. The Coriolis effect explains moving objects on a spinning surface. Some plantes have this effect too. If they spin, why not the earth?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar "They just hover in the air."
No, they are launched with rockets and have velocity. They would have to fire retrorockets in order to dissipate that momentum. They are launched against the rotation of the universe and guided to the appropriate orbit designed to balance the forces. This keeps them geosynchronous (with periodic adjustments). They oppose the momentum of the rotating universe with their velocity, appearing to hover over a stationary earth.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Then the problem would be the satallites would run of fuel too quickly, from holding their geostationary position. These satellites orbit at a hight of 22,370mi(36,000km), so the orbit is circular becasue is in a high orbit ( Keplers 3rd Law), also they orbit around the equator, for maxium effecienty. I understand from your point of view they would not orbit the earth. This would be too costly, becasue you would need more fuel to launch the excess fuel to keep it stationary.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar No, there's no difference. When you change frames of reference, you're just describing the same phenomenon from another perspective.
Imagine that you *are* the geo-synch sat without having any previous knowledge of your inertia. To you, the earth does not rotate, but the universe does. How do you explain it? You must say that you are traveling in the opposite direction of the universal rotation, opposing its momentum such that your position remains fixed relative to earth.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO The problem is gravity. These satellites need to keep aloft to prevent a firery re-entery. I would first think that the universe is spinning, but I would begin to think about gravity. Why isn't the spacecraft falling? Then I would realise its not the universe thats is spinning, but I am orbiting the earth (falling to earth without getting closer). The earths gravity is pulling me around. That is why the spacecraft is not falling to earth. Dose this help you?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar No, of course it doesn't "help" me because you are not considering the effect of the mass of the universe rotating around you with you at the center. You are failing to visualize the frame of reference. In order to do this, you must allow yourself to see that if the earth is stationary, then the effects you attribute to the rotating earth are now attributed to the rotating mass of the universe. You are on the inside of large rotating sphere rather than on the outside of a small one.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO So again the problem is gravity. The object with the most mass, has the most gravity and the greatest pull. The earth is 0.000003 solar masses. All plantes orbit a stars. Why is the earth so special for it not to orbit its star? There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on every beach on earth. But for some reason they all move around the earth? Why not Mars? Its day is almost the same as the earth. You could make the same geocentric claim on mars.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar If the earth sits motionless at the barycenter of the rotating mass of the universe, then the gravity of the sun would not be strong enough to move it out of position.
If the earth is not moving, then it is not a planet.
And asking why X is here while Y is over there is not a question of physics.
And yes, without being able to resolve the problem of relative motion - especially rotation - you could say Mars was the center.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "If the earth sits motionless at the barycenter of the rotating mass of the universe, then the gravity of the sun would not be strong enough to move it out of position." I'm sorry but you are incorrect. The universal mass is not strong enough to prevent the earth falling to the sun. The universe is increadibly spread out. Gravity looses its effect with distance. Earth orbits the sun because the sun has more mass. Earth falls towards the sun without getting closer.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar The massive rotating sphere of the universe exerts a centrifugal force on its interior. The earth is at the center where there is no net force since the forces balance to stabilize it. The sun is orbiting that stable center at 93 million miles out, so is subject to a variance in the net forces acting upon it. Earth's stability in this model is due entirely to its position. You have to look beyond isolated bodies and consider the sum of forces for each model.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO True that there is are a few acting forces on the sun. 1 is the centre (hub) of the Milky Way, and 2 is the wobble casued by the planets. The Sun orbits the Milky Way traviling 7 billion km per year and it takes about 225-250 million years to complete its orbit. The Andromeda Galxay is moving towards the Milky Way. But becasue both galaxys have almost the same mass, that means both galaxies will be moving towards each other. Gravity is not simple, it is very complicated.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar People argue that distant masses have no effect, but then they change their minds when it comes to the sun and the Milky Way! : ) In the Big Bang model, they have to invent mass and energy which cannot be detected in order to make it work. So you're right, it is very complicated to try to comprehend at once the sum of forces acting on objects in space. We still don't know how gravity works. Science is still in its infancy.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I don' t know anyone who argues that distant objects have no effect. However, gravitation does not have infinite velocity. Gravitation moves no faster than light. Things that are billions of ly would produce effects more slowly than objects millions of ly away, etc. The immediate stuff, like in our galaxy would produce a much quicker effect. Have you ever solved a single physics problem from a text book?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Try arguing for a geocentric model of the universe, then you'll run into boatloads of people who say that distant masses have no effect. People say that to me all the time. I guess they forgot what they read in their textbooks. They'll tell you that gravity is weak and quote the inverse square law because they want to treat all forces as local to avoid geocentrism. But then you point out that the whole solar system is being pulled at great speed by objects many l/y away.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "We still don't know how gravity works. Science is still in its infancy." Absolutly true. We don't know what is the casue for gravity or mass. No one is able to fit gravity in with the rest of the universal forces. But however, the mathmatics of gravity and mass is very accurate. Sir Issac Newtons publication "Principia Mathematica" explains why geocentrism is superseded. Einstein reviewed Newtons theory of Gravity and applied his Theory of General Relativity.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar How does Newton's work do away with geocentrism? It is precisely due to the current concept of gravity that unseen matter is inferred. How can you know that a theory is sound when it requires such fixes? Are we inventing stuff we can't detect just to save failed theories? I don't know. But if you allow for unseen gravitational sources comprising upwards of 80% of the universe, you cannot disallow geocentrism because dark matter can be placed where it "needs" to be in that model too.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "dark matter can be placed where it "needs" to be in that model " No. Dark Matter has been located in some areas of the of the Milky Way. I understand what you mean by a even gravitational balance in all directions that allows earth to be static. (like if you were able to be inside earth, the gravity in all directions will nullify). But why earth? Would it be more logical that the Milky Ways 'hub' is the centre, instead of a small pale blue dot on the side of the galaxy?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar What do you mean, "no"? No to what? I didn't say anything against observations which confirm the existence of mass that is otherwise undetected via radiation. What they do with this concept of dark matter though is just assume that it is wherever it needs to be to make their model work. I questioned that, and the fact that they say it makes up the vast majority of matter in the universe. But if it does, then it fits with a geocentric model as well.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "it fits with a geocentric model as well" That is what I'm saying no too. As I have been trying to explain on many scales, gravity quickly loses its effect with distance. True, its not absolute zero, but it is very weak. The LIGO is a lab in Louisiana that can detect gravitational waves from distant objects, such as double pulsars. But the gravity from these objects are so weak they have yet to detect any gravitation waves. But they can detect moving trains and aircraft.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar If gravity from distant objects is so weak as to be almost null, then what colossal unknown force is causing the entire solar system to orbit the galactic center at 568,000 mph? Seems to me that it requires a little bit of force to accelerate suns and planets through space at such a speed. What is this force and where does it come from? Does "LIGO" detect it? Perhaps the moving trains and aircraft are hurling us through space? : )
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Yes relative motion. If earth is in the center you will not observe relative motion. And I know about geostationary parallax. If you place yourself in the center of a sphere with two points in line with each other, no matter how you rotate the sphere, you will only see one point. Only when you move inside the sphere will you see the two points.
Sorry if I missed it. How can you prevent a stationary satellite from falling to earth while aginst the universal spin?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar The "sphere" isn't just rotating. It's oscillating. It seems you failed to plug the observation of stellar parallax into the geocentric model. Relative motion means you can describe all observations from any vantage point and the relationships don't change, only the view.
Geosynch sats oppose the universal rotation with momentum from rockets in order to appear to be "hovering". If they did not, then they'd "orbit".
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Einstiens theory of general relativity is based on the idea that the laws of science should be the same for all observers, no matter how they are moving. How can we observe stars travelling faster than the speed of light?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar The stars appear to be traveling faster than light because the earth is at the center and is not moving while the whole universe spins around it. The stars merely "see" a rotating earth and themselves as maintaining their positions. They are not traveling faster than light according to any reference point in their frame. They neither see themselves accelerating nor changing position, even with respect to us. This is just a characteristic of a rotating universe.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OgeronimonominoregO Ok. So the space between the stars are rotating and the stars and gravitaional force moves along with the fabric of space. Is this correct? If so, why the space earth occupies isn't spining with the fabric of space? Would the surface of the earth twist with it?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "They are not traveling faster than light according to any reference point in their frame." This is a restatement of the obvious. Nothing is moving in its own reference frame. If the Earth is indeed at the center of the universe with stars rotating about it, then those stars don't just appear to be moving FTL, they ARE moving FTL.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend If it is the nature of the whole universe to rotate, then what is it traveling against? There is nothing outside the universe, no perspective to say, "Wow, look at that thing go!". It is only from a non-moving point within that this can be detected at all. We, the non-moving, are the anomaly in the picture. If we could then be rotated to match the universal rotation, all perception of FTL disappears. That perception is still frame dependent since there are 2 possible frames.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO "If it is the nature of the whole universe to rotate, then what is it traveling against? " It's rotating about itself. Rotation does not necessarily mean "rotating like a disk." If the Earth rotates, the actuality at least of the FTL as described in this video goes away. Einstein's special relativity only applies where there is no acceleration (rotation is acceleration) ... this is why I want to check the context of the quote you supplied.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Special relativity doesn't apply, so FTL is a moot point. I think the point of the quote was to apply general relativity to the question of cosmology. Einstein said that it was just transferring to a different coordinate system. The physics are equivalent, I think, because a rotational frame will have the fictitious forces while the mirrored (opposite) frame will not - and vice versa if you switch them. Rotation reduces to a binary perspective.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Astronomers are not stupid. If geocentrism has a possibility, it will be publish as a scientific artical and exposed to the public in astronomy magazines. I read the Austrlian Sky and Telescope monthly for six years, and there is yet to be any mention geocentrism is remotly possible. I admit I am not an expert astronomer, but I don't need to be to debunk geocentrism. You fail to explain parallax, fail to explain geostationary orbit and fail to debunk the theory of gravity.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar "Astronomers are not stupid."
He clearly disagrees. Random people on the Internet who have never taken physics, never read any physics texts, never solved any physics problems, never read any primary research, who appear confused by the most elementary methods and results have a vastly deeper understanding of physics than mere astronomers who are brainwashed dupes.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Stop putting words in my mouth. I did not say astronomers are stupid. I did take physics, just not in college, which is what you asked me. I have read physics texts. You asked me if I read college textbooks. I have read some primary research papers.
I did not claim that my understanding of physics was "vastly deeper" than anybody! I merely read what prominent people like Einstein, Thirring, Mach, Hubble, etc. have said about relative motion WRT cosmology.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar I didn't fail to explain parallax. Parallax reveals a relative motion. Do you understand relative motion? How did you determine that the star field was not moving?
I explained geostationary orbit to you. You never responded to what I said.
I was not trying to "debunk the theory of gravity". There exists a force which we call gravity. I questioned the extent of our knowledge of what causes it, etc.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO In Paris, there was an experiment done, the Foucault Pendulum named after Léon Foucault , to show the earth rotates. The experimental apparatus consists of a tall pendulum free to oscillate in any vertical plane. The direction along which the pendulum swings appears to rotate with time because of Earth's daily rotation. This is because the plane of the pendulum's swing, like a gyroscope, tends to keep a fixed direction in space, while the Earth rotates under it.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Or the Foucault pendulum is reacting to the rotating mass of the universe.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO So are you saying that a 5kg swinging ball (Foucault pendulumcan) is able to detect the strength of the universal spinning mass but the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (is so sensitive it can detect moving trains) is not able too? Can you explain why LIGO is not able to detect these gravitaional forces? Because what I have reasearch, its becasue the gravitational forces from distant objects is too weak. They have been working on 2 pulsars in Canis Major.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Obviously you are confusing force with net force. You are taking the existing net force from gravity acting upon us for granted. Apparently LIGO is trying to detect new forces which require some sort of variation from the norm, hence "gravitiational waves".
What the Foucault pendulum detects is an effect of the rotating mass of the universe, not gravity per se.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO But how dose a universal rotating mass effect the the Foucault Pendulum without gravity? What substace or force causing this?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar A rotating mass induces secondary forces like the Coriolis force. A rotating universe is analogous to a single rotating body. It induces such effects on its interior as well.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO But how can the rotaing universe cause the Coriolis force? Dose there need to be a substance/force acting to cause this effect? When I think of wooded bead in a sphere of liquid, I can understand the liquid causing the Coriolis force which would place the bead in the center of the sphere. But I thought empty space dose not contain a substance to cause this effect. Is there another force at work?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar The force that causes the effect is the inertia of the rotating body, i.e., there is a differential between two reference frames - one rotating, one not - and thus we see the effect. The geocentric frame is just the mirror image. Since the inertia ascribed to the earth can also be ascribed to the universe, I'm not sure if the question of what space is matters here since your rotating earth is referencing the same "empty" space and "fixed" background to claim it is the one moving.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I was just wondering about this question. If you were at the edge of the visible universe (ie close to 12 billion ly) you would not be able to see the sun nor the earth. Nor the effects of their gravity. So the question would be is how long has the universe been rotating around this point in space from your perspective? And would the universe continue to spin even if the sun becomes a red giant that could swollow earth in is orbit?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO This is hard for me to imagine. Think of a object, that is the outer shell of a sphere, that pulls gravity equaly in all directions. Inside is a hollow vacuum with a object like earth (water, atmosphere,gravity etc.). How would the rotation of the outer shell effect the atmosphere of the earth like object with only a vacuum between? What are these secondary forces?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Not sure what you're asking. Gravity is a force which acts over a distance through "vacuum" as far as we know. A rotating mass has gravity. When it rotates, secondary forces or effects will result. I really can't explain exactly how the force of gravity is transmitted. Perhaps there is a universal medium. I don't know.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I know gravity travles at the speed of light (180,000mph). For example if the sun suddenly vanished, no one on earth would know until 8 minutes later. The earth would still orbit the empty space because the fabric of space-time will also take 8min. Do you believe in Einsteins Universe? Since its finite in space and constant in time, it can rotate at less than the speed of light everywhere. But however the evidence of increased inflation dismisses the Cosmological Constant.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Some examples of how weak the gravity from distant objects. The gravitional force, on earth, of when all the planets in the solar system is aligned, is equivianlt to the gravitational force of a jumbo passenger jet flying very low. Jupiter, dispite having twice the mass of all the plantes, effects earths tides by the thickness of a human hair. I hope the large Hadron Collider will give us both an expliantion for the casue/s of gravition and mass.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Depending where you live in the US, On the 20th/21st of December there will be a lunar ecllipse. With US CST, the Penumbral (P1) stage starts at 11:27pm. Total eclipce at 12:32am. Now you believe the moon moves with,a bit faster than the stars. Pay attention to the shadow with the P1 stage to total. You will notice the moon is going backwards into earths shadow (west to east). The sun movement dosn't count becasue the moon is going faster than the sun from a geocentric view.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar The lunar eclipse is interesting, but it has nothing to do with the topic.
We're talking about a cosmology here, not earth/sun or earth/moon. The relationships between objects in the solar system which we observe are all the same. No one expects to see the moon behaving any differently than it has. Thanks for sharing the information on the times and dates though.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I am a bit confused on your views of a geocentic universe becasue there are many ideas. From a cosmolical point of view, the agument would lie with the star angles. Astonomers can mesure the slight angles of the star positions from opposite sides of the sun, and by using trigonometry, they have the distance to the star. But if all the stars move in the same direction at the same speed, why would the position of stars mesure at a different angle?
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar I explained it before. It's very simple. If the earth is considered at rest, then the universe as a whole is rotating around it. When you talk about seasonal star positions, your interpretation that this proves an earth in motion is based solely on the assumption that the earth is in motion in the first place. If you assume a motionless earth, then it's the stars that change position.
That is the problem of relative motion in space.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO No. These angles are done accuratly at the excact position. The differance in the angles confirms that the earth changers its position. Astronomers use the principle of stella parallax to measure distances to celestial objects. If earth was stationary inside a spinning ball, we should be unable to use stella parallax. If you put two peas on a dinner plate, the angle will between wil stay the same if you spin it. But if you move from left to right, the angle will change.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Stellar parallax would be ascribed to a precession of the whole sphere of the universe as it rotates.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO If the earth was at the centre of a rotaing universe, the angles between the stars will stay the same. You can put to dots on a circle, and the angle mesured from the centre will stay the same no matter how you spin it. But however we have parallax with the background stars. Its only a very slight angle (arcs) but it is mesurable and observed. You can mesure the angle between two stars in June, then in December the angle is smaller, then back again next June.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Precession means that it "wobbles" like a top. If the earth is considered at rest, then we model the rest of the universe as having an absolute motion that we can describe. You just plug the same observations into that model. This is something that just has to be grasped. There's really no arguing about it.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO No. Even if the universe wobbles like a top (like a plastic ball with the earth inside), it still dosn't change the angle between two points. You can spin the sphere in any direction an you not see parallax. A sphere is just a three dimentional circle. The angles will only change if the earth moves.
I would also like to thank you for writing back. You do have a good grasp on the subject. I am just trying to explain why many astronomers have dismissed geocentrism.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar Once again, the observed motions are relative. When parallax is actually measured from earth, it is the stars that change position. Otherwise you would have no measurement at all. This is then just interpreted as if the earth was moving and not the stars.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO You haven't had a course in physics. Have you ever read an actual textbook - not a popular book on physics, but an actual textbook on the subject? Have you ever solved any mathematical physics problems?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheFallibleFiend No. So what?
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Many satellites do need fuel to keep their postions (mainly the lower orbits) so that is why there are planing to build a Space Elevator. The technology is in progress, and they have already have the ultra stong carbon tubing for the elevator. Imagine a long carbon line streached out, attached to the earth at one end, and the other end (a counter wieght) in space. This will save money on fuel. The counter wiegt orbits the earth, & is also flung outwards by earths rotation!!
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO And yet neither Mach nor Einstein was a geocentrist. Maybe they understood their ideas better than the geocentrists?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend It doesn't matter from the standpoint of physics. It matters when it comes to cosmology, which is more like history and philosophy than physics per se. Geocentrism would be just as valid or more valid than Big Bang which is riddled with absurdities - all to avoid the earth occupying a special place in the universe.
The dominant view now is acentrism. Heliocentrism is an anachronism. Those guys understood that "proof" is elusive, that it's really perspective and choice.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO We're far down one spiral. We can approximate the center of mass of our galaxy and it ain't us. Even in our galaxy alone, accepting Earth as center is stupid. Geocentrism is not "just as valid."
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend You left out the whole rest of the universe. If the earth is stationary, then the whole universe is rotating. The Milky Way rotates with it. You're talking about the mass of the galaxy and ignoring the mass of the universe. What you just said is the same as heliocentrism. You just gave us the view of the local galaxy vis-a-vis itself. Your frame of reference is local. No one said the earth was the center of the galaxy.
MillionthUsername 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername I know what I said. I left it out to make the argument easy to understand. If the same forces are at play, then then they all just happen to balance out around the Earth? Things are moving all over the place and all the time, but at the same time - they balance out around the Earth.
And by the way, I challenge you to find a quote from Einstein that says geocentrism is "just as valid."
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system 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 coordinate systems." --- "The Evolution of Physics," Einstein & Infeld, 1938.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO
1. Saying there is no preferred frame is not the same as saying that this is just as good as saying the Earth is the center of the universe.
2. What are the surrounding elements of that quote?
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Sure it is. That's why some then go ahead and proclaim that there is no center. At least methodologically, you can say that everywhere is the center, or that this or that place is the center, or there is no center.
Einstein is saying that the controversy was meaningless. Honestly, I don't think we are able to discern any more yet since this whole question has been shoved aside. People are under a false impression that something was "proven" when it wasn't.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Imagine a universe with the same laws of physics that we currently have and only two large objects ... an Earth-sized object and a Sol-sized object. In that universe, too, there would be no preferred reference frame. And, yet, if the same laws of physics applied, asserting that the Earth clone was the center would be inconsistent with the understanding of the laws of gravitation. For the life of me, it seems you guys are making a trivial discovery of math and misusing it.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I never said the earth was the center of your hypothetical universe. You just posted it here, and I just read it. What does it have to do with me?
If you are saying that the two objects comprise that whole universe, then you can talk about the center of mass of that sun/earth system being the center of that universe since you don't see anything else. What does that have to do with the universe that we see?
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Interestingly, that same partial quote is on a number of geocentrist sites, but none of them include the surrounding text. Big red flag for me. Next time I'm at the book store, I'm going to see if I can find that book.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend If people think for themselves, it isn't necessary to rely upon quotes of some perceived authority figure. That quote just illustrates that Einstein believed his own theory. Others did too. Today, it seems more like lip service.
I see it as a method (a starting assumption), though, not as a rule.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO If people think for themselves, nearly everything you've said is nonsense and relies on a fundamental understanding of the subject. You seem to have made the kind of mistakes that are common with those who haven't actually ever taken a course in physics. I've read Einstein - not quotes of his, but his actual works - admittedly it was decades ago, but it's more than most of you guys appear to have done. The quote has to potential to at least tell me that ...
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO .... that you aren't just making stuff up. I'll look up the actual quote when I get a chance. I go to the bookstore or library every few months. I'll check on the quote. My suspicion is that it's completely out of context (all the hallmarks are there), but I'll try to be open. BTW, would you know what page it's on? (an actual citation would make it easier to locate.)
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend Page 212, apparently.
I would appreciate it if you would cut the gratuitous condescension of "you people" and "everything you've said is nonsense," and "making stuff up, "and acting like I'm scouring books in order to scalp quotes because I have some devious purpose.
YOU *challenged* ME to find a quote from Einstein, so I went looking for it!
Or did that slip your mind?
How about a "Thanks. That's interesting," instead of needless insults?
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO Thanks. That's interesting. I'm still going to look it up. Creationists do make stuff up and quote out of context. Also, I thought I asked the other guy for the quote and not yet, but that's quibbling. I am very grateful for the quote, regardless of whether the implied meaning is correct. I don't think you personally are scouring books for quotes. Most don't have that kind of energy.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend "then they all just happen to balance out around the Earth?"
They all just happen to balance out wherever you go. That's the point. Where is the observer? What does he see? Is he moving and the universe is still, or is it vice versa? How does he know? Is there a preferred reference frame in space? Einstein's answer was no.
Wherever you go, the things "moving all over the place" keep their *relative*
positions, but the view is different.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I'm sure there are kinematic equations; that's not the same thing as saying the same forces work the same no matter what frame you're in. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never taken physics.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I didn't say "the same forces work the same". I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you've never taken physics.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@OgeronimonominoregO I college physics in HS and I took modern physics in college (relativity and QM). It's been a long time, but I took the classes and did very well. I also took engineering classes on statics and dynamics among others. So I take it you've studied dynamics in university physics? Because I'm not detecting that.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend I'm glad that you took physics in college. I did not take physics in college.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
@MillionthUsername Gravity looses its effect with distance. The Moon has a greater effect on our tides than the sun. The Moon is 0.13 earth masses while the earth is 0.000003 solar masses. The Moon is about 300,000km, and the sun is 149.6 million. The Milky Way has alot dark matter which is very heavy. Many galaxies don't have as much dark matter. We live on the edge of our galaxy, or on the edge of a dinner plate. You can only spin a dinner plate from the centre.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
@Cinnarbar But when we observe a stationary earth and rotating universe, the earth appears at the center of it, thus being its center of mass. The orbiting sun could not move it unless it could overcome the inertia of the rotating mass of the universe. : )
See, you have to stay within one frame of reference at a time. The "solar system" does not account for the rest of the universe. When you move to that larger ultimate frame, "solar system" is superseded.
OgeronimonominoregO 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
Comment removed
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@OgeronimonominoregO @OgeronimonominoregO Here is an experiment you can do from your own home. Look to the west after sunset on December 8th, 2010. Close to the horizon you would see the moon at a waxing crescent. Now each evening at the same time, watch the moons position. You will notice it will move upwards, moving from west to east. This shows you the orbit of the moon and helps you realise the earth is spinning. After about 27-28 days, the moon will be back at the same location.
Cinnarbar 1 year ago
There's no such thing as geocentrism. It is impossible for the earth to be at the center of the solar system, milky way and universe - EVEN in every geocentrist model imaginable. Fact.
Venus single-handedly kills all models except Brahe model. And if you draw the Brahe model, you'll easily see that the sun is ALWAYS at the center AS IT REVOLVES THE EARTH each year. This means the univ orbit shifts.
This does NOT mean the earth cannot be motionless nor the sun cannot revolve the earth.
SounzNice 1 year ago
can you apply your calculation to the other galaxies??How about the rotaion of the other galaxies watched by télescop...it is seemed that the stars move with million times the light speed ...i suggest that the light is not a SUFFISANT proof..because the great masses can bend the light thousands times in very long distances with a huge stars and black holes....and it can draw any modifible shap as te time pass...
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
Comment removed
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
"The maximum speed that anything can travel is c"
This is a common misconception. What relativity actually states is that something cannot /accelerate/ beyond the speed of light and in fact, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate something to c (thus a practical impossibility). It says nothing about things already travelling beyond c and such particles have been theorized.
CrispyGreyMatter 1 year ago
you are true if we dont know that the light has its mass and it cannot get a straight trajectory as you think...from this distance it can draw any modifiable shape before it can arrive to the earth ..i advise you to try find one proof of the earth moving from the earth and don t escape to unknwon universe..i need only one proof from the earth ???
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
@mekkiseghier2002 There is a proof in the video.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend .the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend .the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
and gravity doesn't exist.
Give me a break. How could the sun possibly orbit the earth when the sun is 332 950 times larger in mass.
InSaneTK 1 year ago
I don't no much about what it is that geocentrists claim. But do they say that all the stars are the same distance from earth or that they all happen to orbit the earth at the exact speed needed to make it seem as if the are static (relative to each other)
tmcthree 1 year ago
@tmcthree They don't all make the exact claims. Some of them at least claim that that their calculations are entirely consistent with existing calculations for distances, rates, etc. This means, of course, that stars are not all the same distance from the Earth. If they were the same distance from the Earth, there would be a lot of other inconsistencies introduced.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
@TheFallibleFiend So they must be proposing that the billions of stars all at different distances, just happen to each move at such a speed and in such a way so as to appear static, relative to each other.
How can they possibly say that with a straight face?
What about stars at the poles that don't appear to move?
tmcthree 1 year ago
@tmcthree It's unlikely they understand the mathematics well enough to comprehend the obvious consequences were reality to correspond to their beliefs.
TheFallibleFiend 1 year ago
Last I ever heard, I'm pretty sure, that geocentrists believe the earth rotates on it's axis, but doesn't revolve around the sun. I forget the name, maybe Tycho Brahe or something, but I'm also pretty sure that it doesn't have a light speed conundrum.
Thisisnotmyrealname8 2 years ago
There are different kinds of geocentrism, but most of them are Biblically based and those fellows do not believe the Earth rotates. They don't understand enough about math to understand that it present an SOl problem.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Well, the expansion of space itself occurs at faster-than-light speed, and so many galaxies and stars are moving away from us at many times the speed of light because they're carried along by the expansion of the universe.
A geocentrist could argue that the fabric of space itself is rotating about the Earth, but then you should be able to see alternating blue and red-shift on opposite sides of the sky. Never mind how to explain why space is rotating in the first place or what started it...
ShootMyMonkey 2 years ago
A good geocentrist would state that the Speed of Light might be as false as heliocentrism, or tell that the stars are not truly that distant; they might say that their distance is erroneously calculated because of the redshift due to their orbital revolution around the son, and even there could be no true "limit" to speed because of the Relativity being a false theory. In other words: a geocentrist would never change his mind after these weak studies.
alexiander 2 years ago
A good geocentrist is still an idiot and not worth trying to convince. On the other hand, the napkin math herein described is sufficient to help those who are not idiots understand the consequences of geocentrism; i.e. that one must reject relativity and a lot of other well-known and well-understood things to adopt it. This vid only shows that the non-geocentrist math is consistent.
TheFallibleFiend 2 years ago
Thanks for the video - it's always good to look at things from another perspective.
proudfootz 2 years ago