- #1
jarrah-95
- 2
- 0
I have been having a conversation via email with someone who adamantly agrees with the statements of geocentricism. My first few comments were crap, but after that it got better. What do you think about his statements back?
Sorry that this is so long, feel free to skim.
My statements are in italics and any quotes are denoted with >
In recent (and all past visits) to Mars it has been necessary to account for both the movement of Mars and the Earth. Furthermore, the rocket would have needed a vastly greater quantity of fuel to reach Mars if the Earth was not moving around the sun as most of the initial velocity of the rocket was provided in this way.
Thus, my question is: in a modem physics context, explain how geocentricity can explain the movement of a rocket from Earth to Mars, including these well known and measurable velocities
In the Tychonic geocentric model (in which the planets orbit the sun and the sun orbits the Earth) all the distances and proportional movements are exactly the same when compared to the heliocentric model. In order to visualize this, draw a circle and put a dot in the middle. Put your pencil point on the dot and then rotate the paper. You will see the circle rotate around the dot. Now, pick up your pencil and put it somewhere on the circle. Then, rotate the paper around the pencil. You will see that the dot and the circle rotate around that point. Notice that none of the distances have changed. Everything remains the same. The only thing that has changed is that the center has been shifted from one point to another.
However, it has opened up another question about this model. (I had previously not heard of the Tychonic geocentric model and find it quite interesting.)
In such a model Mars would come as close as (approximately) 2-3 times the distance of the moon from earth. if Mars was in such close proximity, Three things would happen which are not evident. One, we would have massive king tides caused by the gravitational attraction of Mars. Two, Mars would appear massive in the sky for a part of its orbit. Three any spacecraft bound for Mars could reach the planet in a matter of weeks if timed correctly, why then, did MSL take nine months to reach the planet? I am sure NASA with its reduced budget would have launched at a time when the quickest journey is possible.
Mars would be no closer to Earth in the Tychonic geocentric model. Both the Copernican and the Tychonic have the same distances at every stage of revolution. The only thing that changes is the center. It looks like you'll need to see an animation of this to understand it. These are available on our CDrom version that you can get from Amazon. Just look under Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right to order the CD.
I have done some research, and determined that you are right in this respect. However, I have a few more questions for you.
The first is why does the Earth stay stationary? For its mass (a known value of approximately 5.98x10^24Kg) an object such as the sun orbiting it would have an immense effect on it if it were stationary. What force, if any, is placed on the Earth holding it stationary?
My second question is how the Earth could possibly exert a gravitational force strong enough to cause the sun orbit it with a period of 24 hours. (I am assuming that the Tychonic geocentric model does not involve the Earth spinning on its axis as I have found no evidence in my research for such an idea within the model.) According to my calculations (using Kelper's law of periods), with the sun being one AU (approximately 149598781Km) from the Earth and having a 24 hour period, the Earth would need a mass of 8.87x10^68Kg. The earth, as evidenced by all currently known scientific study into it, does not have such a mass.
If we were dealing with only two bodies, the sun and the earth, Newton's laws would require that the Earth revolve around the sun. In the same way, Newton's laws require that Jupiter's moons revolve around Jupiter, not vice-versa. Hence, geocentrism recognizes that there are many local centers of mass in the universe in which the smaller body revolves around the larger. But there is one exception to that rule, and it is at the center of the universe. If the universe rotates (which is allowed by Machian physics and General Relativity as the co-variant of a rotating Earth in a fixed universe), then it must have a center of mass. It is the point around which everything else in the universe revolves. Moreover, the universe's center of mass will not move, according to Newton's laws. Secondly, anything can occupy the universe's center of mass. We place the Earth in that unique position due to various experiments that show the Earth is not moving (e.g., the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and others).
Even allowing for the rest of your statements about the possible rotation of the universe, I still cannot understand why the Earth would be it the centre of the universe.
Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment did not show anything about the movement of the earth. This experiment recorded a null result. That is, changing the independent variable did not have any effect on the dependant variable. To say that this indicates the Earth as a stationary object is to give complete credit to the aether model which has no empirical evidence supporting it.
Could you give me another example of an experiment which gives a result directly related to the motion or lack thereof of the earth?
>Even allowing for the rest of your statements about the possible rotation of the universe, I still >cannot understand why the Earth would be it the centre of the universe.
>
>Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment did not show anything about the >movement of the earth. This experiment recorded a null result.
RS: No, it was not null. It showed one sixth of what was expected. The only reason it was called "null" was because everyone assumed the Earth was revolving around the sun at 30km/sec and they expected to get the corresponding fringe shift. When the fringe shift was only sixth of what they expected, they arbitrarily called it null since they were convinced from Copernicus and Newton that the Earth HAD to be revolving around the sun. In fact, all the interferometer experiments done subsequent to MMX showed the same positive result as MMX (eg. Sagnac, Morley-Miller, Miller, Michelson-Gale, Michelson, Kennedy-Thorndike, Joos, and many others). The small positive result fits right in with geocentrism since it only has to account for a 24-hour rotation of 1054mph, not a 365-day revolution around the sun at 66,000mph.
That is, changing the independent variable did not have any effect on the dependant variable. >To say that this indicates the Earth as a stationary object is to give complete credit to the >aether model which has no empirical evidence supporting it.
RS: As I said above, every interferometer experiment after MMX confirmed MMX's positive result. None of them, of course, measured the Earth moving through the ether at 30km/sec, but they did measure an average of 1- 4km/sec result. In fact, Michelson-Gale in 1925 measured enough km/sec to come within 98% of a 24-hour rotation. Again, this fits a geocentric model, since geocentrism has the universe revolving around the Earth in 24 hours. But it does not fit the heliocentric model, since heliocentrism needs both a revolution of the Earth around the sun as well as a 24-hour rotation of the Earth on its axis, especially in order to explain the seasons. The interferometers only showed a 24-hour rotation.
Moreover, not only do the interferometers (including maser and laser interferometers) show a positive result for a ponderable ether, Quantum Mechanics has its own ether. Whether you want to call it the Higgs Field or Planck particles, QM has an ether. All QM advocates admit this, although they don't like to call it ether because of the stigma it generates.
The main reason Einstein got rid of the ether was because no one could explain how the Lorentz transform could work with ether shrinking rods. So Einstein dispensed with ether and made rod shrinkage (and time dilation) a natural principle of moving objects, otherwise known as Special Relativity. Hence, MMX measured a non-moving Earth because the apparatus shrunk and time dilated as it revolved around the sun.
But there was a simpler solution, namely, the Earth wasn't moving. But Einstein and his colleagues did not want that option, since it would mean they would have to accept that the Catholic Church was right when it condemned Galileo. After MMX, Einstein's biographer put it this way. "The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, and which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable" (Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110). Of course it was "unthinkable." How could modern science admit it had made the biggest blunder in history?
If you want further details on this, you can consult our book.
>Could you give me another example of an experiment which gives a result directly related to >the motion or lack thereof of the earth?
RS: Yes. First there was the Arago experiment in 1818. Then Fizeau and Fresnell in the 1860s. Then Airy in 1871. All of them showed the Earth wasn't moving. MMX was suggested by Maxwell to either confirm or deny them.
Thank you for reading all of this, it is a massive post.
Also, this is my first post on here, I can't wait to take a good look around.
Sorry that this is so long, feel free to skim.
My statements are in italics and any quotes are denoted with >
In recent (and all past visits) to Mars it has been necessary to account for both the movement of Mars and the Earth. Furthermore, the rocket would have needed a vastly greater quantity of fuel to reach Mars if the Earth was not moving around the sun as most of the initial velocity of the rocket was provided in this way.
Thus, my question is: in a modem physics context, explain how geocentricity can explain the movement of a rocket from Earth to Mars, including these well known and measurable velocities
In the Tychonic geocentric model (in which the planets orbit the sun and the sun orbits the Earth) all the distances and proportional movements are exactly the same when compared to the heliocentric model. In order to visualize this, draw a circle and put a dot in the middle. Put your pencil point on the dot and then rotate the paper. You will see the circle rotate around the dot. Now, pick up your pencil and put it somewhere on the circle. Then, rotate the paper around the pencil. You will see that the dot and the circle rotate around that point. Notice that none of the distances have changed. Everything remains the same. The only thing that has changed is that the center has been shifted from one point to another.
However, it has opened up another question about this model. (I had previously not heard of the Tychonic geocentric model and find it quite interesting.)
In such a model Mars would come as close as (approximately) 2-3 times the distance of the moon from earth. if Mars was in such close proximity, Three things would happen which are not evident. One, we would have massive king tides caused by the gravitational attraction of Mars. Two, Mars would appear massive in the sky for a part of its orbit. Three any spacecraft bound for Mars could reach the planet in a matter of weeks if timed correctly, why then, did MSL take nine months to reach the planet? I am sure NASA with its reduced budget would have launched at a time when the quickest journey is possible.
Mars would be no closer to Earth in the Tychonic geocentric model. Both the Copernican and the Tychonic have the same distances at every stage of revolution. The only thing that changes is the center. It looks like you'll need to see an animation of this to understand it. These are available on our CDrom version that you can get from Amazon. Just look under Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right to order the CD.
I have done some research, and determined that you are right in this respect. However, I have a few more questions for you.
The first is why does the Earth stay stationary? For its mass (a known value of approximately 5.98x10^24Kg) an object such as the sun orbiting it would have an immense effect on it if it were stationary. What force, if any, is placed on the Earth holding it stationary?
My second question is how the Earth could possibly exert a gravitational force strong enough to cause the sun orbit it with a period of 24 hours. (I am assuming that the Tychonic geocentric model does not involve the Earth spinning on its axis as I have found no evidence in my research for such an idea within the model.) According to my calculations (using Kelper's law of periods), with the sun being one AU (approximately 149598781Km) from the Earth and having a 24 hour period, the Earth would need a mass of 8.87x10^68Kg. The earth, as evidenced by all currently known scientific study into it, does not have such a mass.
If we were dealing with only two bodies, the sun and the earth, Newton's laws would require that the Earth revolve around the sun. In the same way, Newton's laws require that Jupiter's moons revolve around Jupiter, not vice-versa. Hence, geocentrism recognizes that there are many local centers of mass in the universe in which the smaller body revolves around the larger. But there is one exception to that rule, and it is at the center of the universe. If the universe rotates (which is allowed by Machian physics and General Relativity as the co-variant of a rotating Earth in a fixed universe), then it must have a center of mass. It is the point around which everything else in the universe revolves. Moreover, the universe's center of mass will not move, according to Newton's laws. Secondly, anything can occupy the universe's center of mass. We place the Earth in that unique position due to various experiments that show the Earth is not moving (e.g., the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and others).
Even allowing for the rest of your statements about the possible rotation of the universe, I still cannot understand why the Earth would be it the centre of the universe.
Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment did not show anything about the movement of the earth. This experiment recorded a null result. That is, changing the independent variable did not have any effect on the dependant variable. To say that this indicates the Earth as a stationary object is to give complete credit to the aether model which has no empirical evidence supporting it.
Could you give me another example of an experiment which gives a result directly related to the motion or lack thereof of the earth?
>Even allowing for the rest of your statements about the possible rotation of the universe, I still >cannot understand why the Earth would be it the centre of the universe.
>
>Experiments such as the Michelson-Morley experiment did not show anything about the >movement of the earth. This experiment recorded a null result.
RS: No, it was not null. It showed one sixth of what was expected. The only reason it was called "null" was because everyone assumed the Earth was revolving around the sun at 30km/sec and they expected to get the corresponding fringe shift. When the fringe shift was only sixth of what they expected, they arbitrarily called it null since they were convinced from Copernicus and Newton that the Earth HAD to be revolving around the sun. In fact, all the interferometer experiments done subsequent to MMX showed the same positive result as MMX (eg. Sagnac, Morley-Miller, Miller, Michelson-Gale, Michelson, Kennedy-Thorndike, Joos, and many others). The small positive result fits right in with geocentrism since it only has to account for a 24-hour rotation of 1054mph, not a 365-day revolution around the sun at 66,000mph.
That is, changing the independent variable did not have any effect on the dependant variable. >To say that this indicates the Earth as a stationary object is to give complete credit to the >aether model which has no empirical evidence supporting it.
RS: As I said above, every interferometer experiment after MMX confirmed MMX's positive result. None of them, of course, measured the Earth moving through the ether at 30km/sec, but they did measure an average of 1- 4km/sec result. In fact, Michelson-Gale in 1925 measured enough km/sec to come within 98% of a 24-hour rotation. Again, this fits a geocentric model, since geocentrism has the universe revolving around the Earth in 24 hours. But it does not fit the heliocentric model, since heliocentrism needs both a revolution of the Earth around the sun as well as a 24-hour rotation of the Earth on its axis, especially in order to explain the seasons. The interferometers only showed a 24-hour rotation.
Moreover, not only do the interferometers (including maser and laser interferometers) show a positive result for a ponderable ether, Quantum Mechanics has its own ether. Whether you want to call it the Higgs Field or Planck particles, QM has an ether. All QM advocates admit this, although they don't like to call it ether because of the stigma it generates.
The main reason Einstein got rid of the ether was because no one could explain how the Lorentz transform could work with ether shrinking rods. So Einstein dispensed with ether and made rod shrinkage (and time dilation) a natural principle of moving objects, otherwise known as Special Relativity. Hence, MMX measured a non-moving Earth because the apparatus shrunk and time dilated as it revolved around the sun.
But there was a simpler solution, namely, the Earth wasn't moving. But Einstein and his colleagues did not want that option, since it would mean they would have to accept that the Catholic Church was right when it condemned Galileo. After MMX, Einstein's biographer put it this way. "The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, and which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable" (Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110). Of course it was "unthinkable." How could modern science admit it had made the biggest blunder in history?
If you want further details on this, you can consult our book.
>Could you give me another example of an experiment which gives a result directly related to >the motion or lack thereof of the earth?
RS: Yes. First there was the Arago experiment in 1818. Then Fizeau and Fresnell in the 1860s. Then Airy in 1871. All of them showed the Earth wasn't moving. MMX was suggested by Maxwell to either confirm or deny them.
Thank you for reading all of this, it is a massive post.
Also, this is my first post on here, I can't wait to take a good look around.