[geocentrism] More to reflect upon.

  • From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "geocentrism list" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:55:43 +1000

It was time I checked out my large collection and discovered this CD from a few 
years ago byr Robert Sungenis.. Hi Robert. I am not certain the links are still 
valid, but left all as is.   

This very first post is extremely interesting. Especially note the bit about 
light/radio transmission, in a rotating frame..  which I highlighted within the 
text. 

But this statement confused me.  Perhaps someone can explain it better. Why is 
centrifugal force relative motion, not independent motion? Don't we show it to 
be an independent motion when we swing the stone around?  

"This also leads to the fact that in modern heliocentric physics and cosmology, 
the centrifugal force, which is supposedly the only thing keeping the GPS in 
orbit, is really a fictitious force, since centrifugal force regards only 
relative motion, not independent motion. If motion is relative, then all you 
have are relative effects, not real forces."  

Philip. 
The Geocentrism Challenge: Postings

http://www.catholicintl.com 

Following is an exchange between one who believes Earth to be in motion 
[rotating & orbiting] & one who believes Earth to be entirely immobile.

AC - Letters designate the person who believes Earth to be moving in an 
a-centric universe.  

GEO  -  Letters designate the person who believes Earth to be immobile, which 
is synonymous with "Geocentricity" 

Posting #3.1  -  Sungenis vs Gary Hoge  -  Satellites

AC      Dear Mr. Sungenis, 

In your article on the rotation of the earth you said, "The GPS satellite is 
stationary over the earth because the earth is stationary. The GPS satellite 
doesn't need adjusting very often because there are few things that interfere 
with its stationary position at 22,236 miles above the earth. It doesn't need 
to use large amounts of fuel, because it doesn't move." What I'd like to know 
is how it became stationary. The people who launched the GPS satellites 
believed that the earth rotates, and so they placed their satellites into an 
orbit at which they circle the earth once every day, believing that this would 
result in a geosynchronous orbit. But if, as you say, those satellites are 
currently not moving at all, if they somehow went from 6,856 mph to 0 mph 
(without anybody noticing), what stopped them? 

Sincerely, 

Gary Hoge 

====================

GEO    Thank you for your question. You are the first person to register a 
question. You have stepped forward to face the challenge directly, and for that 
I commend you. 

I will answer your question from several angles, the Third of which is the more 
complete: 

First: 

On the basis of "proof" required of the challenge, the question you propose 
does not "prove" the case of heliocentrism. It merely poses the hypothetical 
problem of how a GPS (satellites of both the Global Positioning System and the 
Global TV Satellites) creator or administrator could properly send a satellite 
into position if he is doing so under the presumption that the earth is 
rotating. I will answer that question more in the "Third" answer. But for now, 
your question must ASSUME that the earth is rotating and/or ASSUME that the GPS 
is moving at 6,800 mph in order for your question to reach the level of proof 
you are requiring from it. But in either assumption, you are begging the 
question. What you will need as proof for your claim is direct evidence from 
the GPS creators or administrators that the GPS is actually moving at 6800 mph 
(which it must if the earth is rotating). Once that is proven, then you can 
make a good case that the earth is in rotation. My assertion that the GPS would 
HAVE to be moving at 6800 is merely the physical requirement for it to be 
gyosynchronous with the earth, if, as it is supposed, the earth is in 24 hour 
rotation. 

And I must caution that proof cannot be merely a statement from the GPS 
creators and administrators that the GPS MUST be moving at 6,800 since it must 
keep up with the earth's rotation, for that is also begging the question, being 
that it assumes one unproven fact in order to prove another. The evidence that 
the GPS is moving at 6,800 mph must be an independent, technical and verifiable 
source of information apart from the mere opinion of the creators or 
administrators. But here's the rub: The only way one could prove that a GPS 
satellite is moving at 6,800 is to first prove there exists a stationary 
inertial framework against which to calibrate a speed of 6,800 mph. Since in a 
heliocentric system there is no absolute inertial framework due to the fact 
that heliocentric theory posits that all the heavenly bodies are in relative 
motion, then there is no absolute inertial framework to measure a speed of 
6,800 mph. 

Also, let me make a correction to the above. I have used the designation GPS 
for the satellites of both the Global Positioning System and the Global TV 
Satellites. The latter are the ones at 22,000 miles up, and do not move 
relative to the earth. The former are at about 11,000 miles up, and move 
relative to the earth in 12-hour "orbits." To do so, they would have to be 
traveling 7,800 mph if they orbit with the "rotation" of the earth, and travel 
at about 500mph against the "rotation" of the earth. 

Also, it is worthy to note that the GPS system works on the basis of 
triangulation. In other words, at least three (usually four) GPS satellites 
must simultaneously send/receive a signal to a precise location on earth so 
that the computer can calculate distance and location for any given object by 
using Pythagorean proportions. But this only strengthens our case against the 
GPS having to be moving at supersonic speeds, since the difficulty of having 
three satellites maintaining that high velocity, along with the necessary 
course corrections requiring the constant speeding up or slowing down of the 
GPS, would be near impossible. An article from Physics Today ("Relativity and 
the Global Positioning System", May 2002) confirms this. It states: 
"Furthermore, because none of the orbits is perfectly circular, a satellite 
speeds up or slows down to conserve angular momentum as its distance from Earth 
varies along its orbit." 

Second: 

To answer your question from another angle, the mathematics required to send up 
a satellite into orbit or a rocket to Mars is precisely the same whether one 
makes the calculations from a Heliocentric framework or a Geocentric framework. 
In other words, a technician may send up a satellite under Heliocentric 
assumptions, but since these assumptions fit the results of Geocentric 
assumptions, then the satellite can be successfully launched and targeted. The 
reason for this is that, since both the Heliocentric model and the Geocentric 
model must both account for all the motions we see in the sky, then that means 
that the mathematics used to derive both models must produce the same results. 
Although the Heliocentric system may, by way of analogy, use the formula 5 + 5 
= 10; whereas the Geocentric system may use 6 + 4 = 10, the point remains that 
both systems will arrive at the number 10, since, by analogy, the number 10 is 
the only number that corresponds to the precise motions we see in the sky. 
Thus, the left side of the Heliocentric and Geocentric calculations will 
differ, but the resulting figures on the right side will always be the same. 

Be that as it may, over the years, ad hoc adjustments made to the Heliocentric 
model have resulted in a very cumbersome and sometimes unpredictable system. 
Although the heliocentric model seems simple at first, a large number of 
motions must be imposed on the heavenly bodies to actually predict what is 
finally observed. Even at that, the match is not exact. In fact, the sighting 
coordinates of telescopes and the trajectories of space probes must routinely 
be corrected to avoid missing their targets. That is a fact that NASA doesn't 
divulge nearly enough. 

More on the GPS: As a background, satellites are an anomaly for scientists. 
They know they work, but they are not quite sure how. In a similar way, they 
know that gravity works, but they don't know how. All they really know about 
gravity is that its force is proportional to the inverse square of the 
distance, but they don't know what "causes" gravity. Newton himself admitted 
this. The only thing Newton did is measure the force of gravity and put it into 
a mathematical formula, not explain the nature of gravity. Unfortunately, most 
scientists today think that merely because they have a mathematical formula to 
explain the results of a certain phenomenon, this necessarily means they have 
discovered the reality, but that is not the case at all. The same reality can 
be arrived at by many different mathematical formulas. 

In regards to the GPS, scientists know that it requires little thrust and 
little adjustment to keep the satellites where they are. They can't explain it, 
for their classical understanding of physics requires sufficient amounts of 
thrust because of the speed required, as well as the necessary adjustments 
required against the centrifugal and coriolis forces acting upon the GPS, and 
the required adjustments against solar disturbances such as solar wind, etc. 
But instead of admitting this anomaly, they just keep thinking that the earth 
is rotating and that the satellite somehow manages to keep in alignment with 
the earth and can be adjusted with little difficulty. 

In order to compensate for the supposed effects of a rotating and revolving 
earth, GPS scientists use what they understand to be "relativistic" 
calculations based on Einstein's theory of Relativity. But they really don't 
need these "relativistic" calculations at all. They incorporate them because 
they already believe the earth is rotating, and their math cannot work in a 
rotating earth without incorporating Relativity. (In fact, Relativity was 
postulated in order to avoid having to adopt the results of the 
Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 which showed that the earth was 
stationary). But the fact is that the GPS works more by trial-and-error than by 
Relativity. One could easily send up the GPS satellites and, by 
trial-and-error, seek the best "fit" just by adjusting and readjusting them. 
Since there are fifty earth-based stations with atomic clocks to help find the 
best "fit," the GPS technician is bound to find one that works. Since the 
atomic clocks only deviate in time by about 4 nanoseconds, the possibility of 
finding the best "fit" is very easy, and that's why the GPS work so well. 

Third: 

All this leads to the conclusion, or at least an equally plausible conclusion, 
that, from the Geocentric perspective, what is REALLY happening with regards to 
the GPS is that the GPS satellites are moving against the inertial framework of 
the stars and their forces, not the earth. By "inertial framework" we mean the 
foundation from which a moving body exerts its escape force and thereby moves 
away from that foundation. In other words, the GPS is revolving every 24 hours 
with respect to the stars, but not the earth, since the earth is stationary. In 
the Geocentric framework, it is the stars which are moving in circular orbit 
around the earth, and it is the gravity of the stars (or any forces caused by 
revolving stars) which provide the inertial framework for any moving object on 
or near the earth. Hence, in the Geocentric framework, when the technician 
sends up his GPS, he is encountering real forces - forces against which he must 
operate the GPS. He must calculate how much thrust he needs; the inertial 
values; and all the other things that will be required to keep the GPS moving 
against the tidal forces of the stars (although, because he believes the earth 
is rotating, he thinks he is merely making calculations against the centrifugal 
and coriolis effects between the object and the earth). Since the inertial 
force from the stars at 22,000 miles would be in equilibrium with the gravity 
of the earth, the GPS satellite can virtually hover above the earth at 22,000 
miles with little thrust and little adjustment. The GPS would only require 
enough power and adjustment so that it can remain in position against 
unpredictable solar forces. 

This also leads to the fact that in modern heliocentric physics and cosmology, 
the centrifugal force, which is supposedly the only thing keeping the GPS in 
orbit, is really a fictitious force, since centrifugal force regards only 
relative motion, not independent motion. If motion is relative, then all you 
have are relative effects, not real forces. Some scientists, knowing it is 
fictitious, have called it the "centrifugal effect." But in the geocentric 
model, as physicist Hans Thirring showed, the centrifugal force is real. The 
GPS is held aloft by REAL forces, that is, the differential forces created 
between the stars and the earth. In effect, an earth which is standing still 
provides the same physics as an earth that rotates. As the famous 
astrophysicist Fred Hoyle said: "We know that the difference between a 
heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and 
that such a difference has no physical significance." 

Let me elaborate on this point. I am going to quote from a few paragraphs in a 
recent article in Physics Today (May 2002) regarding how the GPS works. It 
reads: 

"In Earth's neighborhood, the field equations of general relativity involve 
only a single overall time variable. While there is freedom in the theory to 
make arbitrary coordinate transformations, the simplest approach is to use an 
approximate solution of the field equations in which Earth's mass gives rise to 
small corrections to the simple Minkowski metric of special relativity, and to 
choose coordinate axes originating at the planet's center of mass and pointing 
toward fixed stars. In this Earth-centered inertial (ECI) reference frame, one 
can safely ignore relativistic effects due to Thomas precession of 
Lense-Thirring drag..." (Physics Today, p. 42). 

Did you catch that?! Let me translate for you. "General relativity allows the 
physicist to use all kinds of fudge factors to account for the results he sees. 
[The major fudge factors are the Fitzgerald Contraction and the 
Lorentz-transformation equations which allow you to change time, length, 
distance and mass, in order to arrive at the answer you want, but we won't get 
into those right now]. But we are going to dispense with all those "arbitrary" 
transformations! We are going to use the Earth as the inertial frame of 
reference! In other words, we're going to pretend that the Earth is standing 
still to figure out how the GPS works, and we can do so because the 
Lense-Thirring results said we could!" 

In other words, this scientist, although believing that the Earth rotates 
against the stars, says that it is easier to do his calculations based on a 
fixed Earth, and that he can do so because a fixed Earth produces the same 
results as one that rotates against fixed stars! How deceiving for the layman! 
He is told that scientists are going to use a fixed-Earth model of the solar 
system for all his satellite and rocket ship launches, yet he writes in all his 
textbooks that the earth IS rotating and that there is no way it could be 
fixed. Give me a break! 

Later in the same article he says much the same thing: "Generally, however, the 
transmissions arrive at different times. The navigation messages then let the 
receiver compute the position of each transmission event in the Earth-fixed 
WGS-84 frame. Before equations can be solved to find the receiver's location, 
the satellite positions must be transformed to a common Earth-centered inertial 
frame, since light propagates in a straight line only in an inertial frame..." 
(Ibid., 45). 

In other words, calculating the GPS position cannot be solved using HIS 
equations; rather, he must use equations that are based on a stationary earth 
that is inertial. Why? Well, he had already told us in an earlier paragraph 
that "the principle of constancy of "c" [the speed of light] cannot be applied 
in a rotating reference frame, where the paths of light rays are not straight, 
they spiral" (p. 44). So rather than admit that his Relativity theory does not 
really answer the question of light traveling in a rotating frame of reference, 
he just borrows from Earth-fixed inertial equations, and no one is the wiser. 

In another paragraph he states: "Thus, for each atomic clock, the GPS generates 
a 'paper clock' that reads T. All coordinate clocks generated in this way would 
be self-consistently synchronized if one brought them together - assuming that 
general relativity is correct. That, in essence, is the procedure used in the 
GPS" (Ibid, p. 43). 

Notice that he said, "assuming that general relativity is correct." In other 
words, this scientist, although he is writing an article titled "Relativity and 
the Global Positioning System" and believing that Relativity is the basis for 
it, makes a casual admission that there is a possibility that General 
Relativity is NOT correct. He only assumes it is correct. Why? Because there 
has been a lot of discussion in recent years whether Relativity is indeed 
correct. I'll just give you two examples. (1) One of Einstein's more popular 
"proofs" for Relativity was the precession of the orbit of Mercury. Although 
Einstein's figures successfully predicted the precession of Mercury, it was 
discovered that this was only by accident, since Einstein's formula incorrectly 
predicts all the other precessions of the remaining planets! In one of the 
planets, Einstein's figures have the recession going in the opposite direction! 
(2) Einstein predicted the bending of light around the sun (but others did this 
in 1810). In the 1920 experiment, some of the deflected star light fit 
Einstein's theory, but most of the other starlight did not fit, and still 
others were deflected in the wrong direction! But the pro-Einstein advocates 
only kept the stars that gave the right answer! This experiment has been done 
many times, but Relativists still use the 1920 results because the current 
results are worse than the 1920 results. On top of this, P. Moon and D. E. 
Spencer (Philosophy of Science, 1959) explained the precession of Mercury from 
a Geocentric perspective without Relativity or non-Euclidean geometry (pp. 
125-134) - the very opposite of Einstein's theory. 

Now, here's another paragraph from the same article in Physics Today: 

"In the equation 3, the leading contribution to the gravitational potential 
Theta is the simple Newtonian term GM/r. The picture is Earth-centered, and it 
neglects the presence of other Solar-system bodies such as the Moon and Sun. 
That they can be neglected by an observer sufficiently close to Earth is a 
manifestation of general relativity's equivalence principle" (Ibid., p. 43). 

This is interesting. Even though scientists believe that the earth is kept in 
its orbit around the sun due to the sun's strong gravitational pull, and that 
the tides on earth are caused by the strong gravitational pull of the moon, 
this scientist claims that such forces can be neglected when sending up 
satellites. Oh really? If the moon can pull on the earth's water with such 
tremendous force, how is it that it can't pull on a satellite that is 22,000 
miles closer to the moon than it is to the earth? 

Notice also that he again makes reference to the "Earth-centered" frame of 
reference. How can he do so this time? Because he has commandeered "general 
relativity's equivalence principle." What is the equivalence principle? It's 
the principle that allows them to change frames of reference at will; whatever 
one suits them will be fine. It says, for example, that, if you fall to the 
ground, you can't tell whether you fell toward the ground or the ground came up 
and hit you. Both are "equivalent," and in a universe with only relative 
motion, not inertial motion, one cannot prove one proposition over the other. 
Do you see how much absurdity is created when you deny that the Earth is fixed? 
One can say that the Earth hit him, not that he fell to the ground! We put 
people in insane asylums for less than that! 

How does this benefit the author of the Physics Today article? Well, by the 
principle of equivalence, he can discount all the forces he knows to be in the 
solar system and beyond, and then transfer all those supposed forces as if they 
were forces coming from the Earth only, and thus his math works! 

The author then refers to another anomaly he can't explain between Relativity 
and the GPS. He writes: 

"One of the most confusing relativistic effects - the Sagnac effect - appears 
in rotating reference frames. (See Physics Today, October 1981, page 
20)....Observers in the nonrotating ECI inertial frame would not see a Sagnac 
effect. Instead, they would see that receivers are moving while a signal is 
propagating...Correcting for the Sagnac effect in the Earth-fixed frame is 
equivalent to correcting for such receiver motion in the ECI frame..." 

Yes, the author is right. It is "confusing." Unfortunately for him, the reason 
it is "confusing" is that Relativity has never explained the Sagnac effect, 
found by Georges Sagnac in 1913, nor its follow up experimental verification 
performed by Michelson-Gale-Pearson in 1925. In fact, according to Dean Turner 
in The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers, he writes: "I pause to note that one 
may scan Einstein's writings in vain to find mention of the Sagnac or 
Michelson-Gale experiments. The same can be said of general physics textbooks 
and of the 1971 McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science and Technology... Such an 
oversight in these distinguished encyclopedias constitutes a stinging 
indictment of professional scientific reporting" (p. 44). Why were they not 
mentioned in Einstein's writings? Simple. Because they give experimental 
evidence for the falsity of Relativity theory. Einstein not only did this with 
Sagnac and Michelson-Gale, he also did it with Joos, Ives, Miller, 
Kennedy-Thorndike, and many other scientists who questioned or rejected his 
theory. 

What is the Sagnac effect? It is the result of an experiment that showed the 
earth to be in some type of movement against another substance. The "movement" 
is termed "rotation" and the substance is some aether-type medium that 
scientists had discarded when Einstein developed his Relativity in 1905. (Thus, 
we can see why Einstein would have ignored Sagnac's results). But although 
Einstein neglected its results, other scientists did not, including the author 
of the article in Physics Today (May 2002). How does the author account for the 
Sagnac effect? By using the same Relativistic "transformations" that he told us 
he wasn't going to use in a previous paragraph! This is what he writes: 

"The Sagnac effect also occurs if an atomic clock is moved slowly from one 
reference station on the ground to another...Observers at rest on the ground, 
seeing these same asymmetric effects, attribute them instead to gravitomagnetic 
effects - that is to say, the warping of spacetime due to spacetime terms in 
the general-relativistic metric tensor..." (Ibid., p. 44). 

Clear as mud, right? This is the kind of 'begging the question' mumbo-jumbo you 
see often in theoretical physics of the Relativity variety. What he just said, 
in case you missed it is, although Relativity cannot account for the Sagnac 
effect, we are still going to attribute the discrepancies in GPS calculations 
to Relativistic effects, namely, the warping of "spacetime due to spacetime 
terms in the general-relativistic metric tensor." You see, he is locked into a 
system that doesn't give him the answers he needs, but since he doesn't want to 
admit that they could all be answered by assuming a stationary earth and a 
revolving aether-type medium, then he will continue to push Relativity as the 
answer; and all his readers will bob their heads up and down and confirm his 
gospel, as they have done since 1905. 

The author more or less admits the effects of these unanswered questions when 
in one of his final paragraphs he writes: "Historically, there has been much 
confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost 
impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it!" 

Ah, yes, and now we can see why there is so much confusion, because no one 
knows what the heck they are doing! They know their Relativity equations are 
just fudge factors to explain the things they simply cannot understand under 
the scenario of a moving earth. Yet they have the audacity to borrow non-moving 
or "Earth-fixed" equations in order to give the appearance that an Earth in 
Relativity works! Now you wonder why I'm on the warpath with Geocentricity? 

One more thing before I leave this topic. The difference between the Geocentric 
and Heliocentric concept is important, for one of the major flaws in modern 
heliocentric theory is the failure to account for the effect of the stars on 
all the motions we see. Modern science has virtually dismissed the effect of 
forces from the stars, and instead has based its solar cosmology almost 
entirely on the so-called "centrifugal effects" created by the planets in 
motion. But this is inevitable, since once you posit that the stars are "fixed" 
(as modern cosmology does) then the only thing you have left to determine why 
solar and terrestrial objects move in the rotational paths they do is by the 
supposed centrifugal effect. And thus, all of the modern heliocentric physics 
seeking to understand rotational motion is based on a fictitious force, which 
is not very comforting for anyone wishing to have solid answers for why things 
work the way they do. 

Thank you for your fine question, 

Robert Sungenis

Catholic Apologetics International

May 14, 2002 

Other related posts: