Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As Hoyle confirmed and as the planetarium projector gears confirm, the geocentric Ptolemaic model does a good job of predicting Earth-based
observations
Ok this is very good. Thank you for discussing in a civil manner.
This is the first point I wanted tio make. That geocentrism and heliocentrism both do a good job of dealing with raw observation of the heavens. There
is no difference between the two.
Although, I would like to call it the neo-Tychonian model if you dont mind, as that is the model we use.
Ok, to your questions:
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you agree with Wikipedia estimates on:
The mass, diameter, and density of the Earth?
The mass diameter and density of the sun?
I dont agree nor disagree with estimates of mass or density shown on wikipedia. The reason it doesnt much bother me is because it doesnt matter. Even
if the density and mass of the sun is much bigger than the Earth, it doesnt mean that the Earth cannot be the centre of the system. If we were dealing
with an isolated two body system, this all might be relevant, but we arnt. We are dealing with the entire univererse which consists of billions of
stars which all have density and mass, some probably much greater than the sun.
You see its simply a matter of balance. The Earth can be the barycentre of the universe if all the stars are arranged correctly around it.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Next, what about the formula for gravitational attraction in Wikipedia...do you agree with that? If not what formula or math do you associate with
gravity?
LeSagean Gravity.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course the question this is all leading up to is, what kind of math do you have to support the sun revolving around the Earth in relation to
gravitational force, if any?
My friend, it is useless to concern ourselves with formulas and math. Math doesnt prove anything other than the abilty of man to balance two sides of
an equals symbol. You can say 1+3=4 and I can say 2+2=4. We both end up with the same result but which of our equations is right?
All I can offer you is reason and logic and explanation using quotes from experts in the field.
The basic premise is this. Just as kinematic observations between our two systems are identical and are only seperated by a matter of relative motion,
so too are forces relative.
"...all masses, all motion,
indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter
them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to
think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."
- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.
Notice Mach says ALL FORCES are relative.
You have a rotating Earth in a fixed universe.
I have a fixed Earth in a rotating universe.
The two systems produce exactly the same effects. Coriolis, centrefugal, Eular and gravity. (In fact in my system all of these effects are due to the
same force produced by the rotation of the universe.) I dont hold a degree in physics but let me offer this by way of explanation from someone
qualified:
"…we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and
correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between
the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The
distant matter in the universe exerts a force, –mgamf, on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.
In the Ptolemaic system, the
earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the
earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force ..... Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a
real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In
this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth
(with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by
a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface .....The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the
pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars."
- Andre K. T. Assis, professor of pphysics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil.
