On Aug 26, 2007, at 11:40 AM, Paul Deema wrote:
A further example -- if you immobilise the tub in a spin dryer and turn it on, not only are you likely to wreck the laundry, but your clothes will not have the water removed even if you do manage to get the machine to spin around the tub.
Regarding the machine spinning around the tub -- Actually, if the machine surrounding the tub were sufficiently massive, you're flat- out wrong, Paul. The Lense-Thirring Effect would apply to the water in the tub, and would yank it to the drainage holes at the perimeter. What is called centrifugal force when the tub spins is called rotational inertial drag when the machine spins around the stationary tub.
You should have followed your original point more consistently: that a lot of energy is required for the various *-centric models (geo, seleno, jovo-, etc.). For the spin cycle on a washing machine, a sufficiently massive machine rotating around the stationary tub will yank all the water out. Energy requirements: staggeringly high.
As to the rest of your post, you fail to see that the issue isn't "energy" per se, but "initial energy." Because if any of the *- centricities are correct (and we hold the geo- form to be correct), the relevant energy is a question of what it takes to STOP the motions now that they've been initiated (presumably by the Maker). Most MS astronomers think the universe does rotate, not once every 24 hours, but at an angular velocity of 10E-13 radians per year. Nobody and nothing is pumping in energy to maintain that MS-accepted rotation rate. The same goes true if the geocentrists are right: it's an initial state of the system, not an energy sink that needs to be accounted for.
And, as belabored numerous times on this forum, conducting the M-M test on other bodies would be an excellent way to discriminate between one alleged *-centricity and another. If there's a null result on Earth but not elsewhere, "Game over, man."