The rise of Machian physics: gravity, intertia, and geocentrism

[Silvertiger]

A slight historic deviation to this thread, here I would like to start with some fundamental concepts in physics before going any further, and so naturally this chapter is about Mach and Newton.

From Isaac Newton to Ernst Mach...what's the difference between them? About a century after Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), and Giovanni Riccioli (1598-1671) had debated their views on whatever cosmological model they wanted to go with, whether heliocentric or geocentric, along came Isaac Newton (1643-1727). In his book, Principia Mathematica, he published his famous three laws of motion, in which each law was governed by his notion of "absolute space." Naturally, at long last, Galileo's observations of smaller bodies orbiting larger bodies, as he saw when he gazed at the moons around Jupiter through his telescope, seemed to now be confirmed with Newton's brand new equation, F = ma. Newton said that the force of movement of a body was the product of its mass and its acceleration.

According to Newton, it seemed that heliocentrism had won the great cosmological debate. Newton went on to say that the force of gravity is equal to the mass of one body multiplied by the mass of another body that is gravitationally tethered to it, divided by the square of the distance between them, in his equation: F[g] = (G*M[1]*M[2]) / r^2.

Since the sun is more massive than the earth, the gravity of the sun is greater, and thus would pull the earth toward the sun. To compensate for the inward acceleration toward the sun, the earth must also produce an equal and opposite acceleration away from the sun in order to remain in its orbit. In the heliocentric system, the acceleration is produced by the earth's circular motion, and the earth is said to continue in this acceleration by inertia.

Simply put, Newton said that the earth seeks to move in a straight line, but the gravity of the sun keeps pulling it inward, and the result is the earth's revolute movement around the sun. However, Newton made a crucial distinction, adding that, strictly speaking, the earth does not revolve around the sun, but rather that both the earth and the sun revolve around a mutual or shared center of gravity - or center of mass - somewhere between them. But since the center of gravity is closer to the sun, even inside the sun but away from its center, for all intents and purposes one might as well say that the earth is revolving around it - at least that is how it seemed to Newton and those who agreed with him in his day.

The notion that there must be a mutual center of mass between two bodies (the sun and the earth) in corevolution seemed to be the clinching argument to settle the heliocentric versus the geocentric debate. Since Newton's equation, F = ma, could be demonstrated and measured in the laboratory, there was little opposition the geocentric position could mount against it, except to rely on their theological and philosophical convictions, with the hope that more knowledge would be later gained in science to confirm those convictions, and so for the time it seemed that the battle for geocentrism had been lost.

However, the tide would soon turn toward the stars, When Ernst Mach came on the scene.

Great names from the Age of Enlightenment, such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who is actually called the father of modern cosmology, sided with the laws that Newton had provided for the heliocentric model, as did many other famous scientists of the day. Although Kant had theorized about the existence of what he called "island universes," composed of thousands of stars, at this point in history, quite frankly, the fact was that no one knew much of anything about the stars, except that they shined as points of light in the night sky. No one knew how big they were, how far away they were, or what influence they might have, if any, on the great debate between heliocentrism and geocentrism. Enter Ernst Mach.

By the mid-19th century, physicist Ernst Mach (1838-1916) and his colleagues did something extraordinary that finally vented the stagnant air from the debate: they proposed that the stars are as big or bigger than the sun. Observations from telescopes showed that the number of stars in the universe was enormous, beyond counting, and filling every quadrant of the sky. Mach reasoned that since the sun, due to its large mass, had a truly great force of gravity, that the stars must also have a corresponding or greater gravity, and thus their combined gravity would greatly influence any region in the universe, including our own.

And hence, Mach, in stark opposition to Newton, argued that no place or body in our solar system can escape the combined forces of the stars acting upon us. Whereas Newton believed that the earth revolved about the sun against the background of a fixed but empty, absolute, and immovable space in which the stars did not contribute any force whatsoever, Mach and team argued that space was permeated by their gravity.

And so we have it. Whereas Newton believed in an "absolute space," Mach introduced the novel concept of an "absolute gravity." Hence, Mach posited that it was not space, but matter, as the very thing that produces gravitational force. This fact is something that has always been attributed to as having been proposed by Newton, which just isn't true - it was Mach. And thus Mach argued that since matter produces gravity, such as what we find in the stars, then this "absolute gravity" should serve as the "fixed" background against which we can now measure any terrestrial or celestial movement.

Let that sink in.

Not only did Mach propose relativity before Einstein, but he simultaneously solved how to get around it and the barrier it puts up against the measurement of true motion. Not only that...but NOW we actually have a very real external model of INERTIA that is observable, measurable, and testable. Now, inertia is a force of resistance coming from the gravity of the stars in all directions, rather than being some arbitrary unexplained, unobserved and undistinguished property of mass. This has been shown among many as one of the proofs to show that the earth has no motion in space.

For example, Mach said that the reason that we are pressed against the wall of a rotating amusement ride (today widely known as a gravitron) is precisely because of the gravitational force of the stars that surround us. We feel the all-encompassing force of the stars whenever we change direction or accelerate on earth - otherwise, we are oblivious to it. A rotating amusement ride, although it moves at a uniform speed, is also understood to be accelerating according to physical science, and thus we feel that force, otherwise known as centripetal force.

In the words of physicist Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. (1925-2016): "When the subway jerks, it's the fixed stars that throw you down." What this means is that there is a gravitational tension on earth created in all directions by all the masses in the universe - tension analogous to a stretched rubber band, but in all directions. When we suddenly move against that tension, we feel it as a pulling or pushing force on our bodies. This is otherwise known as INERTIA.

Conversely, in all the stubbornness he could muster, Newton argued that our body wants to move in a straight line in absolute space, instead of a curved path, stating that as being the reason that a body seeks to break away from a spinning carousel. Clearly, Newton's and Mach's ideas concerning the nature of forces and motion in the universe were...quite different. In an interesting addition to this enlightening new path in cosmology, Mach's new insight into our universe led him to conclude that there was no difference between the earth rotating in a stationary universal star field, and a star field revolving about a stationary earth.

As a direct consequence, Mach's contribution to science revived the the heliocentric versus geocentric debate. If there was no difference between an earth rotating in a fixed star field, versus a star field revolving about a fixed earth, how could we determine which was the reality? Well, in a word, Mach expanded our view of motion beyond the two-body mechanics of Newton's original equation for universal gravitation: F[g] = (G*M[1]*M[2]) / r^2

If M[1] is the sun, and M[2] is the earth, Mach said in a roundabout fashion that we need another "M", or "M[3]", to represent the combined mass of the stars, such that F[g] = (G*M[1]*M[2]*M[3]) / r^2. This meant that Newton's laws could still be applied in closed systems in which a limited number of bodies were present to be considered, such as the system of Jupiter and its moons going around it. However, when considering much larger cosmological scales, such as the scale of the universe itself, how would Newton's laws apply if the whole star field were in full revolutory motion about one central point, which happened to be the earth itself?

The answer is actually quite simple.

According to Newton's laws, if the universe were revolving about a fixed point, the earth, situated at its center, then the center of all gravity would no longer be some arbitrary point close to the center of the sun, but rather, it would actually be the earth itself. The universe could be positioned in such a way that it would balance perfectly at the earth - like the empty center of a rotating tire - and thus the sun would remain at a safe distance away from the earth as it traveled with the rest of the stars in the "tire." The earth would simply be located at the center of mass of the universe, which, like our tire example, just so happened to have a vacancy at the center.

Essentially, the whole universe can go around and around and around the earth in 24-hour cycles, and there are NO laws in physics that say that it can't, because it obeys them, as they are presently defined in BOTH Newtonian and Machian mechanics.

Although Newton strived to make his laws applicable solely to the solar system, as he succinctly stated in his 1684 Scholium, "Thence the Copernican system is proved 'a priori', for if a common center of gravity is computed for any position of the planets, it either lies in the body of the sun or will always be very near it," in the end he finally realized, especially after consulting with Christiaan Huygens on the matter, that his laws of motion could actually be applied more expansively. In doing so, it would allow the solar system's center of mass to be near the sun, but also allow the earth to be the center of mass of a much larger system in which the sun could be considered a part thereof.

As such, the sun along with its planets, would revolve about a fixed earth as described in the Tychonian system. For this alternative to be considered, however, Newton stipulated that an additional force outside of the solar system must work in tandem with gravitational forces inside the solar system. Does this sound familiar? It should. It's Mach's Principle.

Several modern physicists have begrudgingly acknowledged Newton's alternative, one of whom is none other than Nobel laureate in physics Steven Weinberg (1933-present). Here is how Weinberg describes it in his 2015 book, To Explain the World: "If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the earth is at rest, then distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in General Relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished 'Proposition 43' that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledged that Tycho's theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets."

Weinberg's reference to "forces akin to gravitation" refers to INERTIAL forces, such as centrifugal, Coriolis, and Euler forces. Using Einstein's General Relativity, G = 8πT, as the sanction, Weinberg indicates that in the view of modern physics, a universe revolving around a fixed earth will create inertial forces that mimic the force of gravity. (This is WHY dark matter can be thusly excluded from calculations attempting to account for all the gravity that is present in the cosmos with there not being enough mass to do the job.) As the universe's inertial forces meet the gravitational forces in our solar system, both will and must contribute to how the sun and the planets move with respect to one another.

He also notes that the inclusion of forces outside the solar system that will allow Tychonian geocentrism are specified in Newton's Proposition 43, which was originally planned to be added to page 510, the last page of the Principia. In P43, Newton writes: "In order for the earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the Sun. For, such a force, acting on all bodies equally and along parallel lines, does not change their position among themselves, and permits bodies to move among themselves through the force of universal gravity in the same way as if it were not acting on them. Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system."

And so, for physicists today wishing to advance heliocentrism, or for those wishing to advance LCDM, they seek to confine Newton's laws to the solar system, and thereby neatly exclude any external forces coming from the universe. This approach of course results in having to regard inertial forces as "fictitious," mere effects that only appear when objects are accelerated - just as is seen in a gravitron ride when its occupants are held fast to its spinning wall. Conversely, by expanding Newton's mechanics to the rest of the universe, which in Newton's case means that "absolute space" will revolve around a fixed earth, the inertial forces created by that rotation are very real forces that are caused by all the mass in the universe. In other words, they are forces that actually CAUSE things to accelerate, rather than being merely effects of acceleration.

In this way, the universe's inertial forces contribute to the movement of everything from the revolutions of the celestial bodies to the directions of hurricanes on earth and the turning of the Foucault Pendulum. Inertial forces will likewise pull the planets around the sun, and pull the sun and moon around the earth. As noted in Newton's P43, ALL of these movements are permitted by Newton's physics and are confirmed by modern physics. In point of fact, having real inertial forces is actually better for Newtonian physics, since without them, Newton NEVER possessed a physical explanation for what exactly causes the planets to continue to accelerate around the sun, without eventually being pulled INTO the sun.

In addition to P43 permitting a geocentric universe, his mechanics also bear out that the earth will have no inclination to rotate. When the gravitational and inertial forces are balanced around a center of mass, they cannot generate a torque, and thus the earth must remain absolutely motionless. And this state of rest is calculated in the torque equation: T = ∫vp(r)(r-R)dV = 0 = no rotation of earth, where p is the density of the universe, r is a point mass in the universe, R is the universe's center of mass, and V is the volume of the universe. If the reference point mass r is chosen so that it also R, the center of the universe, then the resultant torque is zero. Because the resultant torque is zero, the body will behave as though it is a particle with its mass concentrated at the center of mass of the entire system. By selecting the center of gravity as the reference point for a rigid body, the gravity forces will not cause the body to rotate, which means that the body can be considered to be concentrated at the center of mass.

In other words, not only will the earth remain at the center of mass, there will be no torque present to make it rotate with the universe.

[WaltzCee]

The statement that motion is relative is an important concept in physics. The meaning behind this statement is that the motion of an object is relative to either the frame of reference of the observer, or to another distinct frame of reference.

[agor95]

Hi Silvertiger

As you have taken time to compile your post; I felt it was appropriate to show you due respect and read the text.

As a general rule [law] I do not read such large amounts of text; being so text adversed.

Philosophy is the beginning of science; not the conclusion.

So what is your proposition?

[Update]

I just gone to the link at the start of your text and see the basic point.

There are several ways too represent and model mathematically the observations around us. Are any of them real or none?

The point I would like you too think on is the Earth rotates on is axis; with a wobble of cause.

When an earthquake happens this can cause a change in the Earth's rotation.

So either this effects just Earth.

Or the whole universe that is rotating around the static Earth changes it's rotation rate. This will effect objects in the far distances by a large massive increase in acceleration and the change will need to be instantaneous.

Good Compilation

Regards

[Silvertiger]

The summary of the whole is that all observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming the earth to be at rest. The crux of the geocentric debate seems to bear out its own proof with the exclusion of dark matter - something that has never been observed or measured or tested. It was actually simply just invented on the spot, ad-hoc, as a means of explaining how the earth can be moving, when in fact observations of the spiral handedness of the majority of galaxies observed clearly shows a preferred direction of universal rotation. https://www.universetoday.com/87488/are ... ft-handed/

It's no different than observing how cream creates tiny swirling "galaxies" on the surface of your morning coffee when you stir it in: not only do they all rotate as a whole in whichever direction you are stirring, but their spiral handedness is also going in the same direction. These observations have been catalogued in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), and it is a direct contradiction to the current model of the universe, the Lambda Cold Dark Matter model that assumes a 3d flat, 4d curved balloon expansion model that has no rotation and assumes no preferred directions whatsoever with the goal of NOT placing the earth at the center, since their model HAS no center. Balloon model: https://images.app.goo.gl/fLrPzGNvTBEyLavb9

However, when we remove this absurd notion of dark matter from the universe, the ONLY possibility that remains in our observations of the heavens is that there IS a net universal rotation that completes one revolution roughly every 24 hours. Thus, the shear LACK of mass that we measure in the universe that cannot give an account for the APPARENT "extra gravity" in a fixed, non-revolving background of stars wonderfully and beautifully resolves itself.

If you go back to what Weinberg said, it is indeed the case that the apparent extra gravity, what he termed as "forces akin to gravitation," is actually the INERTIAL forces that are arising from this massive rotation, in ADDITION to the gravity of the celestial bodies themselves, which is what gives a complete accounting of how the galaxies are held together with there not being enough mass present in them to accomplish the task in a universe that does not rotate.

And thus, science itself has handed us the resolution that, since the ONLY possibility that remains with all observations of the heavens when dark matter is excluded is the fact that the universe is rotating rather than the earth, that these same observations ALSO have no choice BUT to place the earth at plum center. Consider a time-lapsed photo of the northern sky from any position close to the north pole. Polaris stays put, while all the other stars further from center trace out "star trails" in the sky:

https://images.app.goo.gl/rxnLw2SwsesDrJcK6

In addition, the second takeaway is the fact that, if the earth were moving around the sun, that there would be at least two major times of the year when the earth's linear momentum would experience a 180 degree reversal, and would be easily measurable with current technology. However, all attempts at this have failed.

And finally, the third takeaway is that the problem of the mystery of inertia is resolved, for it can then be defined externally as a result of gravitational and inertial resistive forces from the stars, rather than being defined without explanation as a property of mass itself.

[WaltzCee]

A hard thing to reconcile is the earth is moving at Mach 1.36303 at the equator yet the air
and you seem to be at rest.

No difference between those 2 masses.

[Silvertiger]

Doesn't seem to jive, does it lol?

[Zhyyra]

No, it doesn't seem to jive at all, hehe. I remember your previous thread proposing this model of the universe and find it quite interesting. Thx for posting.

Zhy

[Silvertiger]

What's very sad is that the geocentric model has MANY proofs, and the LCDM model has NONE. The geocentric model does not require ANY ad-hoc unproven, unobserved, and untested notions like dark matter, dark energy, the Lorentz Transform, the balloon model, etc. whatsoever to be accounted mathematically...but the LCDM does.

LCDM Model:
1. Dark Matter - Does not exist but is used to explain excess gravity holding galaxies together that do not contain enough mass to get the job done with gravity alone.
2. Dark Energy - Does not exist but is used to explain the redshift anomaly that shows that all galaxies are accelerating away from earth in ALL directions, with the exception of Andromeda since it is very close to us.
3. Lorentz Transform - The most absurd ad-hoc contrivance of all time that is used to give yet another reason why the earth's motion cannot be detected. Its predecessor was the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction of length, which stated that the reason the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment yielded no motion of the earth was due to the "fact" that the westward arm of the apparatus SHRANK at just the right amount so as not to be able to detect any measurable difference. To THIS DAY it has never experienced any scientific confirmation, nor has any explanation been offered for it. It is quite franky...simply THERE, without reason or merit.
4. Balloon inflation - Does not exist but is used to explain how all galaxies are moving away from us and from each other, by not having a center, so as to intentionally avoid the direct evidence that DOES place earth at the center.
5. Modern cosmology still cannot explain spiral handedness, the spherically concentric measured distance from the earth to observable quasars and gamma ray bursters, the spherically concentric distribution of galaxies around the earth as the center hub separated by concentric spherical gaps, aka "shells," of approximately 250 million light years with no stars in the gaps, nor can it resolve the fact that observations of temperature fluctuations in the CMB disprove an isotropic and homogeneous universe by showing that there are multiple planar axes that align with the earth's ecliptic plane, its equatorial plane, AND its 23.5 degree axis.

Geocentric Model:
1. Dark Matter -not required to yield the same results
2. Dark Energy - not required to yield the same results
3. Lorentz Transform - not required to yield the same results
4. Balloon Inflation - not required to yield the same results
5.A. Spiral Handedness - accounted
5.B. Distribution of quasars and gamma ray bursters - accounted
5.C. Distribution of redshifted galaxies - accounted
6.D. CMB alignments - accounted

Which one is the winner? Rhetorical.

Why the LCDM model? Because to acknowledge the evidence that places the earth at the center of the universe is to acknowledge an intelligent design.

Here is an experiment you can do that is...modestly affordable: For about $75 on ebay, you can purchase your very own linear Michelson interferometer and measure the non-motion of the earth. Align one beam westward and see if you can detect any motion in the fringe gap. Then, take the same interferometer with you onto a train (a bullet train would be best) or an airplane (the Concord would be best) and align a beam with your direction of travel.

[agor95]

Hi SilverTiger

So either this effects just Earth.

Or the whole universe that is rotating around the static Earth changes it's rotation rate. This will effect objects in the far distances by a large massive increase in acceleration and the change will need to be instantaneous.

You have not explained why your concept requiring instantaneous acceleration of all the objects in the universe to explain a rotation rate changes of the earth?

You seem to spend time on a straw man counter instead of making a rational explanation.

You may as well make the Earth Flat while you are at it.

Regards

[Silvertiger]

You basically just wrote that the real subject of the article was not addressed or refuted, but instead was replaced with a false one.

First of all, since I wrote, I cannot refute myself, and thus it is not a strawman.

Second, in order to fulfill your strawman criteria, you must first establish the argument that was avoided, and then you must highlight the false argument that was presented in is place.

But rather than do that, you yourself presented a strawman: the notion that there is a rate of change in any rotation of either the earth or the universe. I have never seen any evidence of this, neither has anyone else, and so according to observation it is currently false.

If I may venture a guess as to the problem here, and hopefully I can address what you're looking for: even though rotational speed is UNIFORM and UNCHANGING, any system experiencing rotation is also experiencing a CONSTANT CHANGE in linear velocity. So in a rotating system, this IS the rate of change of velocity - which by definition is acceleration. And because it is rotation, this means that the changes are constant at ALL times. If they weren't, then there would be no change at all. In any "instant" that you measure it, the angle is always going to be a different value. In physics, "instantaneous" means a measurement taken at an "instant" or "moment" in time.

You also wrote what you believed needed to be addressed: "The point I would like you too think on is the Earth rotates on is axis; with a wobble of cause. When an earthquake happens this can cause a change in the Earth's rotation."

1. The earth does not rotate. That WAS the point of the whole thing. And it cannot be disproven. If you could, you would already be a Nobel laureate.
2. An earthquake cannot induce rotation of the earth, nor can an earthquake change a rate of rotation if the earth is assumed to be rotating. I shouldn't have to explain why, but I don't mind doing so: The earth sits in space. The only way to get it to move or rotate is to either hit with something and add mass to it, or the earth itself must expel mass into space - this is known as propulsion. The only other way to get it to move without propulsion is for the universe to experience an imbalance in gravitational and inertial forces that would serve as a net force (Newton's First Law) to act upon it.

[agor95]

Hi SilverTiger

So we have the two options an Earth that is rotating. Also the Earth rotation can change over time.

https://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/index.php

Or the Earth is not rotating and everything else is rotating around it as far as we can observe. Also I expect you need that rotation to be unchanging.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach
Interesting Read

Regards

[Silvertiger]

Actually...there aren't two options. The motion is not relative. It is absolute. It is the universe itself that revolves, and that is proven. The earth doesn't move. It is very difficult to convince someone of this for the fact that the exact opposite has been taught to them since childhood at every school. When you look a the sun rising in the east and setting in the west, the logic you were taught in school says it is not the sun that moves, but the earth. However, that just simply is not the case. All observation of the heavens say that the earth neither moves nor rotates. And rotation of the universe cannot change over time for the simple fact there are no other net forces acting upon it externally to slow it down.

[Silvertiger]

A simpler way of viewing all of this is to take the “Absolute Space� in Newton’s F = ma and replace it with Absolute Gravity - or Absolute Matter - namely, the stars and their collective gravity. Whereas in Newton’s Absolute Space the centrifugal (Cf), Coriolis (Co) and Euler (E) forces are “fictitious� or secondary, in the model for Absolute Matter, they are real and written as F = ma + Cf + Co + E, the latter three caused by the gravity of the stars (Gs), so that we can write F = ma + Gs or F – ma = Gs.

In essence, the gravity of the stars acts precisely like the rigid Absolute Space that Newton wanted but could not find the cause. Any object [m] in sudden movement [a] against the spatial rigidness caused by stellar gravity [Gs or F] will result in equal and opposite inertial forces, which is why T. E. Phipps said: “When the subway jerks, it’s the fixed stars that throw you down.� A paper published in January 2013 in the European Journal of Physics, titled “Newtonian–Machian analysis of the neo-Tychonian model of planetary motions,� shows by mathematical analysis how the Newtonian and Machian systems combined support the Earth-centered universe with the sun revolving around the Earth. Theoretical physicist Luka Popov writes in the Conclusion to his paper:

The analysis of planetary motions has been performed in the Newtonian framework with the assumption of Mach’s principle. The kinematical equivalence of the Copernican (heliocentric) and the Neo-tychonian (geocentric) systems is shown to be a consequence of the presence of pseudo-potential in the geocentric system, which, according to Mach, must be regarded as the REAL potential originating from the fact of the simultaneous acceleration of the Universe. This analysis can be done on any other celestial body observed from the Earth. Since Sun and Mars are chosen arbitrarily, and there is nothing special about Mars, one can expect to come up with the same general conclusion. There is another interesting remark that follows from this analysis. If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force will immediately be generated. That same pseudo-potential causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it.

As it stands, modern science can mount NO objection to geocentrism due to the duality of its own force laws. Mach’s Principle and Einstein’s use of it allows the Earth to be at rest in the center of the universe and have the sun revolving around it. The distant matter (e.g., galaxies) that rotates around the Earth creates a centrifugal force, which acts like but counteracts the force of gravity, keeping the sun a certain distance from the motionless Earth, namely, 93 million miles. Even Einstein was forced to make a concession in this regard, from which he wrote the following in his 1914 paper, titled “Die formale Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie:

We need not necessarily trace the existence of these centrifugal forces back to an absolute movement of K' [Earth]; we can instead just as well trace them back to the rotational movement of the distant ponderable masses [stars] in relation to K' whereby we treat K' as ‘AT REST.’…On the other hand, the following important argument speaks for the relativistic perspective. The centrifugal force that works on a body under given conditions is determined by precisely the same natural constants as the action of a gravitational field on the same body (i.e., its mass), in such a way that we have no means to differentiate a ‘centrifugal field’ from a gravitational field….This quite substantiates the view that we may regard the rotating system K' as at rest and the centrifugal field as a gravitational field….The kinematic equivalence of two coordinate systems, namely, is not restricted to the case in which the two systems, K [the universe] and K' [the Earth] are in uniform relative translational motion. The equivalence exists just as well from the kinematic standpoint when for example the two systems rotate relative to one another.

This also means, of course, that not only the sun, but the planets and every other moving object in our system, are controlled by the galaxies. As such, it takes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in precise orbits.

[agor95]

It is the universe itself that revolves, and that is proven.

I have down loaded https://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.6045.pdf

However the network of people via observational measurements show the Earth has variable rotation in relation to various objects.
That includes celestial objects outside our galaxy. [See the first link in my previous post].

Were your believe requires this not to be true.

[Update]

I have given the link above an initial read.

To sum up my understanding so far.

The Sun centre model gravity pull the planets into orbits.

In the Earth centre the external Universe pulls the Sun around the Earth.

This process in concept can use the Universe and Sun combined too bring the other planets into their correct path.

Of cause we would have to configure the Universe differently for each star system.

Regards

[Silvertiger]

If that were, true, then we would be able to measure that motion. Go ahead. Try it. Buy a cheap interferometer and take it for a ride. All software that is designed to measure any conceived motion of the earth is already programmed to assume the motion is there, for there is NO experiment ever conducted that has shown any movement of the earth whatsoever, neither are there any observational measurements of it other than the presupposition - a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action - that the earth moves upon which those supposed measurements are derived.

Basically they are saying that they can measure that the earth moves because they already know that the earth moves - in science, we call that the tail wagging the dog. You can verify this my asking any physicist in the world. They may try to dodge the issue, but if press for detail, they will admit that all measurements are based on a purely philosophical convention that assumes that the earth moves.

The link you gave shows in plain sight its own presupposed parameters in their software. Otherwise it would do nothing.

In regards to the update you posted, your understanding is correct.

Addendum:
In regards to your statement, "the Earth has variable rotation in relation to various objects," this is clearly relating to cases of stellar parallax, stellar aberration, and the retrograde motions of local bodies such as Mars and Mercury. But sadly, these variations do not, and never have, proven that the earth moves, for the same case can also exist for a rotating universe that varies in its own motion, such as a precessional wobble, a precessional spiral, and any factors in a slightly uneven distribution of mass that would cause it to have an eccentric rotation.

So say that the universe has slightly more mass on one side of it than the other, well, then it will obviously rotate about THAT center of mass...which is still an empty spot at the center of the tire where the earth sits and where the net torque is still zero. As for Mars and Mercury, retrograde is seen because they themselves are going around the sun.