*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

**Follow-Ups**:**[geocentrism] Overview Barbour & Bertotti***From:*philip madsen

**[geocentrism] more to reflect on 2.***From:*philip madsen

- » [geocentrism] More to reflect upon.
- » [geocentrism] Re: More to reflect upon
- » [geocentrism] Re: More to reflect upon