Featured Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

They say there's no truth in either the geocentric or the heliocentric models. You're saying there's truth in one of them.

 

I don't have to. It's not my comment:

. . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo . . . cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light) Einstein, Relativity (page 77)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...MAhUCt4MKHdl_Cq4Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Max Born:
If we take the earth as the system of reference, we have

the centrifugal field (III, 9, p. 70) 4^-, which assumes enormous

values at great distances. Hence the g's have values that
differ greatly from the Euclidean values of (99). Therefore the
velocity of light is much greater for some directions of the
light-ray than its ordinary value c, and other bodies can also
attain much greater velocities.
​

 

[This is not in response to ITL's post directly above. For a rebuttal to that see the one directly above his.]

But I never claimed to know the nuances of the theories of relativity. I'm only telling you what physicists have said. I've quoted it many times, and I will one more time.

In regard to assuming a geocentric model, or a heliocentric one:

Einstein: Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification [by the theories of Relativity.]

Hawking: . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained [by the theories of Relativity] by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.
​

I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking know more about the theories than do I or anyone else posting on this thread. So if your argument is that the theories of Relativity won't justify a geocentric model, or does so less than a heliocentric one, then your argument is with them, and not with me.

I already said I'm content to accept the honest conclusions of those who've made the observations and peformed the experiments.

 

Hawking: . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained [by the theories of Relativity] by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.
​

If we assume the Earth to be at rest, the most dramatic observation would be a celestial sphere rotating at a velocity much, much greater than the speed of light. Hawking said that can be explained.

Aaron can't explain it. And he never claimed to be able to explain it, though he did look up some of the primary sources.

The funny thing is what many people here think they know.

 

Summary thus far:

Einstein created his theories of Relativity in no small part because of the failure of experiments to prove the motion of the earth.

According to modern physicists, including Einstein and Hawking, the geocentric and heliocentric models are equally justifiable by the theories of Relativity. (So would be a lunarcentric model, or any other model based on the assumption of any body to be at rest.)

Thus, the widely accepted notion that the earth orbits the sun (a notion that I accept btw, because I believed my science teachers) is no more a scientific reality than the notion that the earth is at rest and the sun moves around the earth.

The faster than light speeds of the distant stars and galaxies that would result by assuming the earth to be at rest can be accounted for by the theory of general relativity where bodies and light can assume values much greater than 186,000 mps.

 

Mach's principle can be stated as, 'the distribution of matter and field energy-momentum (and possibly other information) at a particular moment in the universe determines the inertial frame at each point in the universe'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle


Einstein gave the name 'Mach's Principle' to the following related ideas: that only relative motion is observable, and hence that there should be no dynamically privileged reference frames; that inertial forces should arise from a gravitational interaction between matter only, and so from an an observer-dependent splitting of the total gravitational field; that space-time is not an absolute element of physics, but that its metric structure is totally dependent on the matter content of the Universe.

. . .

Mach's Principle is found to be satisfied in Robertson-Walker models and in a simple class of inhomogeneous solutions. These results lead us to suggest that Mach's Principle may play a role in explaining the observed gross features of the Universe.
Mach's Principle in General Relativity

 

But it is applied. Ergo, the second citation.

Guys, I ain't makin' this stuff up. Your own apostles are saying this stuff. Thinking that Relativity proves heliocentricity is true is not science. It allows it, but by the very same principles it allows heliocentricity, it allows geocentricity.

Physicists are saying this. Not me. Check out the OP again.

 

The math works out no matter the coordinate system employed. Timing communication with the Mars Rover is not dependent on the heliocentric model.

I'm not arguing geocentricity, but it doesn't say the earth is the center of the solar system, as if the gravity of the earth is retains the sun in orbit. Geocentricity argues that the earth occupies the center of the mass of the universe. Assuming it is in the center of mass, it is by definition at rest, and everything is carried around it by the rotating heavens.

Aaron didn't do the math on that. Physicists did. That is their conclusion. Honesty will compel them to admit that both models can be used with equal justification, but they will always say, the earth goes round the sun.

Here are the implications: what you thought was settled science really is not. It is an assumption. It may be a logical assumption, but there is no science that compels one to say that one model is more true than another. I've quoted them enough in this thread. You either agree with them or not, but your argument isn't with me.