Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

[Aaron]

If I fire a shell, it will go measurably farther or shorter, depending on how far east or west the gun is aimed. And instead of saying that this is a verifiable proof that the earth is spinning independently of the shell while it is airborne, you claimed that gravity from some foreign object is effecting the shell, like the moon causes the tides.

I'M not claiming that. Physicists are. The phenomenon that you think is proof that the earth is moving can be explained by other forces assuming the earth is at rest. As stated in the article cited in the OP:

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful.​

The Coriolis Effect was discovered in 1835. It is rejected as "verifiable proof." The Foucault Pendulum was invented in 1851. Neither is this accepted as "verifiable proof," because, as was stated, the phenomena can be explained by forces other than the motion of the earth.

So, Einstein said:

to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be
made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already
remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before
the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled
to this negative result.
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf
​

and:

I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.
http://inpac.ucsd.edu/students/courses/winter2012/physics2d/einsteinonrelativity.pdf
​

That's whay THEY are saying. I'm just tellin' ya.

 

[Aaron]

Relativity allows the motion of the earth, but in doing so, it also allows the earth to be at rest. Aaron ain't sayin' that. The scientists are.

 

[TCassidy]

the phenomena can be explained by forces other than the motion of the earth.

Which are?

 

[Rob_BW]

Which are?

Good luck.

 

[Aaron]

Which are?

Asked and answered.

To summarize this latest argument:

Rob_BW: Ballistics proves the rotation of the earth.

Aaron: Not according to these scientists:

Gerald A. Aardsma, Ph.D (author of the article cited in the OP:

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful.​

Albert Einstein

...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments…all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.
​

Rob_BW: You're dumb. I'm not playing anymore.

 

[Rob_BW]

Relativity allows the motion of the earth, but in doing so, it also allows the earth to be at rest. Aaron ain't sayin' that. The scientists are.

But relativity isn't a grand unified theory of everything.

Asked and answered.

To summarize this latest argument:

Rob_BW: Ballistics proves the rotation of the earth.

Aaron: Not according to these scientists:

Gerald A. Aardsma, Ph.D (author of the article cited in the OP:

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful.​

Albert Einstein

...to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments…all attempts of this nature led to a negative result.
​

Rob_BW: You're dumb. I'm not playing anymore.

Name a scientist and the source he claims produces the effect.

 

[TCassidy]

the phenomena can be explained by forces other than the motion of the earth.

Which are?

Asked and answered.

And where is an answer to my question of what these "forces other than the motion of the earth" are and who has postulated the hypothesis?

Still waiting.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Let's take a look at this: if the earth were at rest, the entire universe would have to be spinning around it. Sounds plausible. Until we look at the speed.

Objects on the earth's surface are traveling at 1040mph. To keep it simple, we'll round down to 1000mph. This is 4000 miles from the earth's center. As you (hopefully) know, every time you double the distance in a spinning object, you double the speed. In other words, of something is geostationary at an altitude of 4000 miles, it has to be traveling at 2000mph.

To maintain the illusion that the earth is spinning, the sun would have to travel at 23.25 million miles per hour. Now, this is only 3.4% the speed of light, so no problem so far. Pluto, on the other hand, is 4.67 billion miles away. Where we get the problem is that it would have to travel at 1.16 billion miles per hour, or 184% of the speed of light. Then, you'd have to account for the fact that relative to us, its speed is sometimes slower and sometimes faster.

Now, those speeds of almost twice the speed of light would occur only within our galaxy. Further out and the speeds necessary would increase exponentially. Andromeda, our closest galaxy, is 2.5 million light years away. One light year is 6x10^12 miles. So, we're looking at Andromeda being 15,000,000,000,000 miles away, traveling at a speed of 37.5X10^11 miles per hour. That's almost 6,000 times the speed of light. And that's the closest galaxy to us.

I think you can see how things get even more complicated from there.

 

[Aaron]

And where is an answer to my question of what these "forces other than the motion of the earth" are and who has postulated the hypothesis?

Still waiting.

Aaron: Scientists say there is no experiment or observation that has proven the motion of the earth. (cites them numerous times.)

Rob_BW: (cites observations known to every scientist for almost two hundred years to rebut the scientists)

TC: (his world is rocked because none of the books he's read had mentioned that little known fact, and now demands that folks do his homework for him to rebut the scientists.)

Guys, if the things you think are conclusive really were conclusive, why do you think those I've quoted don't regard them as conclusive?

 

[Aaron]

Let's take a look at this: if the earth were at rest, the entire universe would have to be spinning around it. Sounds plausible. Until we look at the speed.

Objects on the earth's surface are traveling at 1040mph. To keep it simple, we'll round down to 1000mph. This is 4000 miles from the earth's center. As you (hopefully) know, every time you double the distance in a spinning object, you double the speed. In other words, of something is geostationary at an altitude of 4000 miles, it has to be traveling at 2000mph.

To maintain the illusion that the earth is spinning, the sun would have to travel at 23.25 million miles per hour. Now, this is only 3.4% the speed of light, so no problem so far. Pluto, on the other hand, is 4.67 billion miles away. Where we get the problem is that it would have to travel at 1.16 billion miles per hour, or 184% of the speed of light. Then, you'd have to account for the fact that relative to us, its speed is sometimes slower and sometimes faster.

Now, those speeds of almost twice the speed of light would occur only within our galaxy. Further out and the speeds necessary would increase exponentially. Andromeda, our closest galaxy, is 2.5 million light years away. One light year is 6x10^12 miles. So, we're looking at Andromeda being 15,000,000,000,000 miles away, traveling at a speed of 37.5X10^11 miles per hour. That's almost 6,000 times the speed of light. And that's the closest galaxy to us.

I think you can see how things get even more complicated from there.

You don't think Einstein or Hawking knew this when they said they could assume either model with equal justification?

 

[Rob_BW]

Rob: Still waiting for name.

Aaron: "Scientists say..."

Nobody is arguing about the math relative to perspective. But if my car traveling at 50mph on a resting earth is mathematically equal to my car remaining at rest while the earth moves underneath it at 50mph, I don't assume that my car has enough horsepower to move the planet.

The question is: What force would be causing this phenomenon other than the earth's rotation? You mentioned the moon, tides, the gravity of foreign objects. What scientist says that any of those things is the cause?

 

[TCassidy]

Guys, if the things you think are conclusive really were conclusive, why do you think those I've quoted don't regard them as conclusive?

Still no answer to my question "what those "forces other than the motion of the earth" are and who has postulated the hypothesis?"

 

[Aaron]

Still no answer to my question . . .

Rob: Still waiting for name.

Asked and answered.

 

[TCassidy]

Asked and answered.

I have yet to see what those forces are and who has shown evidence they, and not the Earth's rotation, is the causative factor.

Come on. Just admit you can't answer the question. Don't keep insisting you answered it when everybody reading the thread knows you didn't!

 

[Aaron]

Guys, your trivial objections, based on your own fragmented knowledge, which you think is more complete than it really is, are all moot. I've gone above and beyond what is really demanded of me in citing primary sources which clearly debunk your cherished assumptions.

Read the article in the OP. Read the quotes of Relativity's apostles. There's no mistaking what they're saying. The heliocentric model is not the "obviously true" model. I proceed on the assumption that the author of the article cited in the OP is much more versed in the theories than I am. You're assuming you're more versed than he is.

You think Einstein and Hawking come down on the side of heliocentricity because they're compelled to by the laws of physics as defined by Relativity. But they don't. They come down on the side of heliocentricity because of the presumption that if a Naturalistic explanation for the observations of astronomers can be created, then it should prevail.

Going with classical physics, all experiments to measure the motion of the earth have null results. Have I looked into all the experiments? No. Do I fully understand all of them? No. (I do understand interferometers though, working with and servicing laser interferometers on the high definition pattern aligners at the fab). But if I read that Einstein said all attempts to measure the motion of the earth give a null result—IOW a zero velocity, or one very close to zero—then I accept that conclusion on the assumption that he knows what he's talking about. And that is what he said. Relativity was created to explain the null results and still have an earth in motion, but at the same time, according to their own words, it also allows the earth to be at rest.

He wasn't ignorant of the Coriolis Effect, he wasn't he ignorant of Foucault's Pendulum. Neither was he ignorant of the implications for the tremendous velocities of distant bodies assuming the earth at rest. He even said his general theory can allow that. He was not ignorant of these things, but I assume that you are, if you keep disagreeing with him about exactly how conclusive you think what you know is.

 

[TCassidy]

I've gone above and beyond what is really demanded of me in citing primary sources

Names of the scientists and a clear statement of the mechanism for causing that which most scientists attribute to Earth's rotation.

Either put up or shut up!

 

[Sapper Woody]

Ok, I'm at my computer and finally able to put together a good post. The rest of the time I was on my tablet.

Aaron, I am not arguing Einstein and Hawking. I'm arguing your interpretation of them. Similar to when two people use the Bible to argue their points; no one argues what the Bible is saying, they are arguing over who has the interpretation correct. That's why I urged you before to read them in context and figure out what they were talking about.

When used as a simple coordinate system, yes either model can be used. And this is what they were saying. Geocentricity is valid as a coordinate system. However, when you bring in other things, it is no longer valid. As has been demonstrated, even just the launching of an artillery shell over miles will be affected by the turning of the earth. When we want to send a probe to Mars, geocentricity is no longer valid. We have to make our calculations based upon the sun.

Ironically, our calculations are based upon the sun being the center of the universe when in reality, this is probably not true. It could be, but it's not likely. But since we are not calculating anything beyond our solar system (for flight purposes) the model of the sun at the center of the universe works. If we ever get to explore outside our system (which won't be possible without greater than light speeds) then we'll have to design a new calculation system.

So, again, I am not arguing that as a coordinate system geocentricity is not valid. After all, I say "the sun rises in the east". I don't say, "the rotation of the earth causes the sun to be seen in the east in the morning".

Now, I can't help but notice that you use relativity to bolster your claims on geocentricity. While you're technically right, you're wrong. Using relativity (and this is what Einstein was saying) any point in the universe that we can imagine can become the center for a coordinate system. I could say that my house is the center of the universe, and I'd be correct. No one could prove me wrong.

But again, that's only for a coordinate system. For other calculations, we have to assume that the earth is rotating around the sun.

 

[FrigidDev]

I'm fairly certain that Einstein, and almost absolutely certain that Hawking were aware of Sirius and the observations of astronomers when they made their statements.

But I'm told that gravity affects the speed of light. Where more gravity is, then light and bodies are faster. If the earth is our reference, then there is tremendous centrifugal forces at distant regions, and light and bodies can move at speeds much greater than the speed of light.

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.

https://archive.org/stream/einsteinstheoryo00born/einsteinstheoryo00born_djvu.txt​

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I just want to point out that centrifugal force does not exist. It is simply inertia misunderstood.

 

[FrigidDev]

Also, nothing can (following this model), travel faster than the speed of light. Everything breaks when you consider going past the speed of light.

See this equation, which is modeling how distance is distorted as you approach the speed of light.

L = L_0*(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))

It's called the lorenze transform, and it explains how the distance between objects at the speed of light approaches zero


c = speed of light

v = your velocity, as you approach the speed of light

L = distance

 

[InTheLight]