[geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

  • From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 08:48:47 +1000

RM I found your statement below rather interesting, but difficult.
"General relativity allows non-inertial frames of reference,
even earth-centered earth-fixed. "
To say that two different reference points can be allowed, has to be a
mathmatical concept. It allows for calculations/equations to be workable for
either reference point, but this does not tell us the reality of the
situation in the real world, which is what we are dealing with here.

It does of course support what I have always contended, that the math works
for either the geocentric  or any other concept.

There is no scientific way of proving if the earth or any place in the
universe is immobile. Not even Alans alien could do that, unless of course
he was an angel. It comes back to faith systems.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "RM Mentock" <mentock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 11:07 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: (no subject)

At 06:55 AM 8/1/2004, you wrote:
>On 31 Jul, . <yerushabel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  As Moller's text on Relativity makes clear, the centrifugal, Coriolis
> > and Eulerian forces which are treated as fictitious forces in a
> > non-geocentric context are real, actual forces in a geocentric context.
>         No they're not real. They seem to be real if you're in a rotating
>environment, but they don't actually exist.

In general relativity, even gravity is fictitious.

General relativity allows non-inertial frames of reference,
even earth-centered earth-fixed.  Here's a quote from

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between
the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite
meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification.
The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,'
or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean
two different conventions concerning two different CS."
-- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248
in original 1938 ed.)

CS, in that quote, means Coordinate System, and here's
another from Einstein's Theory of Relativity by Max Born.
 From page 356 of the 1962 Dover edition:

  "A similar error lies at the root of the following, which is
continually being brought forward, although the explanation is very
  "According to the general theory of relativity, a coordinate
system which is rotating with respect to the fixed stars (i.e., which is
rigidly connected with the earth) is fully equivalent to a system which
is at rest with respect to the fixed stars.  In such a system, however,
the fixed stars themselves acquire enormous velocities."

Born does provide the simple explanation promised.  In the Earth-fixed
system, the metric coefficients are transformed, becoming very large at
large distances away from the Earth.  Since the limit on the speed of
light is derived from these coefficients, the "enormous velocities" of
the stars are still less than their local speed of light.

Nowadays, the interpretation is different.  At any place, one can
find a local frame of reference that can be aligned so as to be
inertial--and in *that* local frame, the local speed of light is c.
So, it is often said that even in general relativity, the speed of
light is restricted to c--but you can see that the interpretations
are a bit different.

Other related posts: