The proof of earth's non-motion: the experiments

[agor95]

Hi ovyyus

I believe the Mars's day is our 24 hours + 40 minutes. So the universe rotates around Mars slower than the universe rotating around Earth.

Regards

[agor95]

I kinda like Eotvos Effect - I got used to it. Shame to throw it away :7)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv%C3%B6s_effect

The Earth rotation assists the placement of rockets into space.

In fact rockets sent using the static Earth model showed errors in their trajectory.

For example, most spacecraft are launched in an orbit with inclination fairly near to the latitude at the launch site, to take advantage of the Earth's rotational surface speed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v

Regards

[eccentrically1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceJOBFj3hKs

https://www.universetoday.com/14491/why ... th-rotate/

https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/h ... a210241300

https://www.quora.com/If-the-Earth-rota ... e=3d5d7dfe

[Fletcher]

Thanks agor for the info on launching rockets. I was aware of it, especially as we in NZ now have Rocket Lab launching from the wild Mahia peninsula near to where I grew up, so even a philistine like me would know about it.

I think ST's point is that he believes that all forces can be explained by either a stationary earth model or the revolving earth model. So that would apply to Eotvos Effect and rocket launching also I'm guessing.


And also a thanks to ECC1 for your reference material.

I must admit I did have a slight agenda when I wrote about the outer edges of the universe theoretically rotating around a stationary earth in 24 hours traveling at a speed of 11.67 billion LIGHT YEARS per hour.

Last night was a reasonably clear night and I stood on my deck after dinner and watched a few stars in the night sky. These were a few ones I could see in our galaxy with the naked eye. I couldn't even see the milky-way. So these ones were either quite close or very big and bright etc. And I imagined them charging around their earth orbit in 24 hours and wobbling at the same time. I know from what I've read that our nearest star is about 4 light years away. Then I thought about those stars in galaxies in the outer regions of the universe which I couldn't see. And thought about the fantastical speeds they would have to be going to complete a revolution in 24 hours. It struck me as utterly unbelievable, looking into that vastness.

And I thought about ST's comments of unimaginable speeds 1 second after the big bang well above light speed. And what I'd once read about there being no universe (in terms of occupied space volume) preceding the big bang and that the universe created itself as it expanded and occupied newly created space-time (my simplistic take-away). And his comments about patterns in the universe, and shells or layers of formation and occupation, that from one perspective could be explained with an earth centered universe, according to him and some of his researched authors. And I remembered why this stuff is above my pay-grade.

Then I went back to my simplistic approach - and the sneaky agenda.

If stars are traveling at 11.67 BILLION LIGHT YEARS per HOUR at the edge to circle earth in 24 hours then that requires an enormous amount of Centripetal Force to maintain that acceleration (i.e. constantly changing direction).

And I wondered if any geocentric believer/scientist had done the sums to calculate the gravitational force required to provide that astronomical Centripetal Force ?

And did this match the WMAP universal mass density and temperature maps to indicate it was a possibility, or pure fantasy ?

What orders of magnitude was the theoretical difference ?

[agor95]

Well that is it then.

We may as well get back to spinning up Bessler's Wheel.

I trust SilverTigher can get back on topic.

Regards

[MrTim]

So the idea is that the Universe is swirling around the Earth like water swirls around in a toilet. That sounds like a good analogy... ;-)

[daxwc]

https://sciencevibe.com/2020/06/05/the- ... -examined/

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CI ... 0016-5.pdf

[Silvertiger]

If stars are traveling at 11.67 BILLION LIGHT YEARS per HOUR at the edge to circle earth in 24 hours then that requires an enormous amount of Centripetal Force to maintain that acceleration (i.e. constantly changing direction).

Centripetal force is merely a center-seeking force...in the case of the stars, it is their combined gravity that tethers them together. But their gravity isn't enough to hold their rotational positions, and thus they are literally flying apart, roughly to the tune of 73 km/s (160,000 mph). This, in essence, IS what Edwin Hubble saw out of his telescope...why all the galaxies were redshifted. This is also why the length of a day increases each year by 1.8 ms. The further away from the center of their rotation the stars and galaxies move, the slower and slower the universe turns. Of course, we will never really notice any difference because of the shear astronomical amount of angular momentum it possesses.

Also, as a reminder, the only limit on the speed of light is gravity. If the universe is rotating, then the gravity is rotating with it, since each star has it and carries it along, which then of course gives rise to the three inertial forces that were described as "akin to gravitation." Einstein never could find a way to wriggle around this fact, and so he allowed it in his framework for objects with mass in a rotating system with gravity to move at speeds greater than "relativistic" light (i.e. 186,000 mps in vacuum without consideration of gravity), and thus the stars in reality never have exceeded the speed of light...they have only exceeded the local limit in that it is still moving at c, but added to its respective gravitational tangential velocity of its radius from the center of rotation...earth...which will always be faster than the local limit (i.e. the solar system). (I hope that made sense) :)

[Fletcher]

Earth days have been getting longer over eons. Only about 1/2 hour since the last of the dino's. Our year apparently has remained about the same i.e. less days in a year now than then. The lengthening is apparently caused by the gravitational interplay of the earth and moon. Friction from gravity driven tides on earth slows her rotation, whilst the moon became gravity locked and its orbit circumference is slightly increasing by about 4 cm per year. At least that's what I've read, not observed.

Because of Conservation of Momentum, and viewed from the geocentric model, it means the universe rotated faster in the past and slower now. It used to take 23 1/2 hours to rotate around the earth. That should mean according to that model that all rotating masses in the universe are moving outwards to occupy more volume and still balance CoM i.e. the ice-skater effect in a sphere format from an earth centerist view.

And viewed from the expanding balloon model with big bang center, it means the earth rotated faster in the past and slower now because of the tidal frictions reducing earth momentum and energy. And apparently the galaxies acceleration away from the projected center is increasing and not slowing to reverse to a big crunch, as seen by Hubble's red shift. Read and not observed. Hence the need for string theory dark energy, dark matter, and doesn't matter ;7)

[Fletcher]

How does a circulating molten earth core fit with the geocentric model ?

We have convection currents (volcanism) and apparently a spinning core giving rise to magnetic fields etc.

If accepted as true then that would mean the core spins, whilst the earth outer layers and surface does not, and the rest of the solar system and cosmos at large rotates around the static non-rotating earth surface at its center. Except the spinning core is the center IINM.

What is driving the core rotation while not the surface ?

[Silvertiger]

Hence the need for string theory dark energy, dark matter, and doesn't matter ;7)

Except for one minor problem - those things don't exist; neither have they ever been observed or detected. That's what puts it in favor of the geocentric model - the fact that this model doesn't require those fictions to account for all that stuff. The math works.

If accepted as true then that would mean the core spins, whilst the earth outer layers and surface does not

You just defined super-rotation (in a roundabout way, as what would naturally follow would be the "why"). Why DOESN'T it affect the surface? The current model and physics has NO explanation for this...it is a mystery to them. Same thing for the atmosphere as well and also the atmosphere of, say, Venus, which rotates I think four times faster than the planet, thus consistently overcoming frictional contact with the surface.

However, the earth's core also has a counter rotation. Something to think about. :)

[Fletcher]

Fletcher wrote: Hence the need for string theory dark energy, dark matter, and doesn't matter ;7)

Except for one minor problem - those things don't exist; neither have they ever been observed or detected. That's what puts it in favor of the geocentric model - the fact that this model doesn't require those fictions to account for all that stuff. The math works.

No, I don't believe at this time in accountants dark energy and dark matter either to balance the books. I do believe in Hubble's Law that the majority Red shift galaxies observed and plotted show an increasing cosmos expansion rate which is linear with distance IIRC. And there are some small percentage of Blue Shifts as discussed earlier.

However, Ovyyus's original question that you have side stepped is still a very valid question. Mars has a day length orbit of 24 hours 37 minutes (earth). It is earths nearest planet. It is observed to rotate, hence its known day length. If we were on Mars surface rotating with it, or in stationary outer orbit between it and earth, we would see earth rotating in kind. A comparison between the two FOR could be made.

Does the math work equally well for a Mars-centric model of the universe as a geo-centric model ?

Fletcher wrote: If accepted as true then that would mean the core spins, whilst the earth outer layers and surface does not.

You just defined super-rotation (in a roundabout way, as what would naturally follow would be the "why"). Why DOESN'T it affect the surface? The current model and physics has NO explanation for this...it is a mystery to them. Same thing for the atmosphere as well and also the atmosphere of, say, Venus, which rotates I think four times faster than the planet, thus consistently overcoming frictional contact with the surface.

However, the earth's core also has a counter rotation. Something to think about. :)

Venus rotation 243 earth days - its year is quicker than one Venetian day IIRC my school lessons. Just looked up the atmospheric rotation rate. 60 times faster than the planet rotation rate i.e. 96 hours to rotate. Now that's super-rotation compared to earths piddly solid inner core and viscous outer inner core. Both supposedly counter-rotating.

Since Venus is very close to the Sun and its atmosphere very heated by it obviously, then the atmospheric super-rotation must be a function of that thermal energy having to go somewhere, like convection currents and angular momentum interplay I guess. Whatever, it's not a beach holiday destination high on my bucket list.

[Fletcher]

If stars are traveling at 11.67 BILLION LIGHT YEARS per HOUR at the edge to circle earth in 24 hours then that requires an enormous amount of Centripetal Force to maintain that acceleration (i.e. constantly changing direction).

Centripetal force is merely a center-seeking force...in the case of the stars, it is their combined gravity that tethers them together. But their gravity isn't enough to hold their rotational positions, and thus they are literally flying apart, roughly to the tune of 73 km/s (160,000 mph). This, in essence, IS what Edwin Hubble saw out of his telescope...why all the galaxies were redshifted. This is also why the length of a day increases each year by 1.8 ms. The further away from the center of their rotation the stars and galaxies move, the slower and slower the universe turns. Of course, we will never really notice any difference because of the shear astronomical amount of angular momentum it possesses.

Also, as a reminder, the only limit on the speed of light is gravity. If the universe is rotating, then the gravity is rotating with it, since each star has it and carries it along, which then of course gives rise to the three inertial forces that were described as "akin to gravitation." Einstein never could find a way to wriggle around this fact, and so he allowed it in his framework for objects with mass in a rotating system with gravity to move at speeds greater than "relativistic" light (i.e. 186,000 mps in vacuum without consideration of gravity), and thus the stars in reality never have exceeded the speed of light...they have only exceeded the local limit in that it is still moving at c, but added to its respective gravitational tangential velocity of its radius from the center of rotation...earth...which will always be faster than the local limit (i.e. the solar system). (I hope that made sense) :)

Talking of Edwin Hubble and his Law of 1929.

Can his accepted observations of red shifted galaxies being evidence of a receding galaxies model or expanding universe model be used to argue against a geocentric universe model ?

Please correct me if I am wrong !

Hubble made his observations of galaxies light from a ground based telescope. Where the light from distant galaxies was refracted and slowed thru our atmosphere to his eyepiece. Later the space telescope of his name confirmed his findings and they are widely accepted as true.

The red shift observed denoted a lengthening of the lightwave frequency or a Doppler Effect in action with light. He deduced that that light source was receding from the observer etc etc, and an expanding universe.

In your first post in this topic you gave the history of failure by MM et al to find a significant difference in the speed of light on earth when direction of earth to that galaxy light source was considered. IOW's I'd expect a Doppler effect albeit small perhaps. So if the earth was moving thru space towards a distant galaxy then the frequency should be compressed at arriving at the eyepiece i.e. blue shifted. And when the earth was directly moving away from that same distant galaxy light source it should red shift (a bit more). Just like Hubble observed tho perhaps to a much smaller degree given the scales and speeds involved of the earths direction compared to the speed of galaxy recession.

Ok .. to my point. If Hubble et al can detect and measure a red shift from a distant galaxy light source and conclude that it is receding away from our galaxy. Then if out at the outer fringes of the known universe with a stationary earth geocentric model should not our telescopes also pick up a shift in light frequency for tangential displacement (and speeds) to complete one revolution of the whole known universe in 24 earth hours ?

[Silvertiger]

Would it be equally difficult to prove that Mars is moving after conducting the same experiments from the surface of Mars?

No. Mars does rotate, and it orbits the sun. An interferometer test would reveal that.

Does the math work equally well for a Mars-centric model of the universe as a geo-centric model?

No. LOL

No, I don't believe at this time in accountants dark energy and dark matter either to balance the books

(This sentence...could you rewrite it so I can understand it better?)
In regards to dark natter and dark energy, I would like to say before I get distracted by other points that the notion that galaxies are moving away from us at speeds very close to the speed of light is a classic case of petitio principii, since it is an interpretation of red shift data that must first assume the Copernican Principle is true in order to conclude that the galaxies are receding at light speed. In actuality, it is an unproven hypothesis of modern cosmology, which admits it is missing 96% of the matter and energy it needs to allow the galaxies to expand in accordance with Big Bang theory predictions. Hence, they NEEDED to create dark matter/energy. Or, as Martin Selbrede so eloquently put it:

Those who hold to the Copernican Principle believe there is no center, or every place is a center, but if there is a single center it is any place but here, and they propose this as a scientific position. (But where is the science behind that?) It’s not. It’s a metaphysical commitment. It’s not science anymore. So it’s not the geocentrist that is being unscientific here, it is the other side that is being unscientific, because their commitment precedes the science. At least our position follows the science. They are trying to derive the science by a metaphysical commitment. We’ve actually proposed taking a Raleigh interferometer onto the space shuttle....Three geocentric scientists proposed this and published it in one of the journals….A Raleigh interferometer…sends light through both a vacuum and a water tube and combines the light together and this allows us to maximize the effect of a Michelson-Morley style experiment….The reason that these experiments are not done is the assumption that we already know the result….This is perhaps, again, a matter of being fearful of the result…They don’t want to do it. They assert, ‘Well, a ring laser does the same thing.’ No it doesn’t. It’s a completely different measurement entirely…Of course, Einstein dies on the vine the second that you get a non-zero result…and all of physics collapses with the experiment.

Can his accepted observations of red shifted galaxies being evidence of a receding galaxies model or expanding universe model be used to argue against a geocentric universe model ?

Of course not (because they HAVE no evidence)...they don't have one shred of proof nor observations to support that fantasy...but they argue it anyway, and the vast majority will try to demean you and guilt you and even call you crazy for even asking questions. For example, a question they cannot answer is any question with these two words: spiral handedness. Try it. See what they say LOL. Spiral handedness all by its itty bitty self proves the universe rotates. Even if I were to assume that the earth DOES rotate for the intents and purposes of the modern cosmologist, the undisputable fact is that the universe ALSO rotates. And if the universe rotates, then observation of the stars places the earth at the center of THAT rotation, right smack in the center of the universe, whether the earth rotates or not. EVEN if space were expanding (which it doesn't...cuz of the 96% lack of energy first, and the fact that it isn't observed), the universe STILL rotates...which is a contradiction to a balloon.

In your first post in this topic you gave the history of failure by MM et al to find a significant difference in the speed of light on earth when direction of earth to that galaxy light source was considered. IOW's I'd expect a Doppler effect albeit small perhaps. So if the earth was moving thru space towards a distant galaxy then the frequency should be compressed at arriving at the eyepiece i.e. blue shifted. And when the earth was directly moving away from that same distant galaxy light source it should red shift (a bit more).

That's not how an interferometer works at all. You couldn't make it work like that if you wanted to LOL. It's a small apparatus with two perpendicular arms in vacuum with lasers and mirrors. Whatever wavelength of light you choose to experiment with will never shift inside of it. The wavelength remains constant and the speed remains constant. That's what makes it a great tool to measure motion. When it did NOT measure motion, they didn't like the result and so they invented a math formula to "transform" the result into one that "shows" motion.

Then if out at the outer fringes of the known universe with a stationary earth geocentric model should not our telescopes also pick up a shift in light frequency for tangential displacement (and speeds) to complete one revolution of the whole known universe in 24 earth hours ?

They do. All the time. That IS redshift - your tangential displacement, i.e. the skater allowing her arms to fly out. It isn't space that is expanding - it's centripetal expansion, or rather, "elastic circular motion."

[TGM]

As much as it is an old term, I say GIGO is happening here. At least on the surface.

We are most probably in a simulation. Some observations will not have the predicted actions due to the algorithm in our machine.

The operators have left us significant clues. One is the size paradox. The fact we cannot see the 'bottom' of our physical world is one clue.

The double-slit experiment is another clue. The fact that light reacts to being observed, other than being mind-blowing, should alert you that you cannot trust what you see. Does the Earth move? Does it matter?

A simulation would allow for either a stationary or moving Earth. And that's the dilemma in play here. If we are stationary, the universe can revolve around us at impossible speeds. If we are moving, does it matter?

The aether cannot be detected. The movement of the Earth cannot be detected. The 'bottom' of things cannot be detected. It's also probably true that matter doesn't physically exist. And therefore, you do not physically exist either.

In fact, you are just a figment of a computer program. You only see the instantaneous image the simulation allows when your eyes are opened. Want to prove it? Close them. Does the universe still exist? But your program does. The system just conserved a minute amount of power not displaying the images you think you can see.

It gets better. When you do open your eyes you only see what is immediately in your focus. Nothing real exists behind that wall in front of you. Nothing exists behind you. The only thing that exists is what you can see. And that is a simulated image.

And what about time? In our simulation, it can be changed to any time. If you were operating the sim, what time would you set it to be? 20,000 years in an invented past where communication doesn't exist? 20,000 years into the future when simulated science can actually detect we are in a simulation? Nope. It's right 'here' right 'now.'

Not one of you can explain our existence. You can fall back on the old standby, that God is doing everything but there is no absolute way you can know. But then again, maybe God is the computer running our simulation.

So does the Earth move? Is it stationary? Is this important?

What is important is where did the physical world come from if it exists and likewise where did the simulation originate if it exists. In fact, where did anything come from? Was there ever a real physical universe?

My contribution as to arguments of whether the Earth is moving or is stationary is this:

You are both right.