Geocentrism is correct.

[IDMclean]

The universe does infact revolve about the planet earth. Here's why.

 

In relativity, a body can be said to be at rest, relative to itself. So that the earth is at rest, relative to itself. From the point of view of the Earth, the universe revolves about the earth. This is known as Geocentrism.

 

This does not, infact deny Heliocentrism, which is also correct, So long as the Reference frame is that of the Sun. In which case from the point of view of the sun, the universe revolves around it.

 

Further this is supported, I believe, by the properties of gravity. Have you ever noticed how if you drop two objects, one more massive than the other, neglecting air friction (in vacuum), they both hit the ground at the same time? Now, if we neglect the earth, and ourselves in this experiment, such that we drop two bodies, of any mass in vacuum, in "zero-g", they would begin to revolve around one another, from a mean attraction point's perspective.

 

This I believe applies even for the earth and the sun. From either perspective, each one is "falling" towards the other at the same rate. So, the sun infact revolves around the earth.

 

Comments?

 

-"He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man" Dr Johnson

The Killer Clown, KickAssClown

[Qfwfq]

From a modern standpoint (since Newton), it's a matter of determining which reference is more exactly inertial.

[Jay-qu]

The sun does not infact revolve about the Earth, both earth and sun revolve about a mutual orbit at the COM.

 

There are experiments that can be done to proove that we go round the sun and not the other way round - without exclusivly observing it.

[arkain101]

There is a relationship between moving objects, including orbiting bodies with mass, and it is what each body view as motion.

 

If the motion of any two bodies interacts and their masses are different the interaction will be equal to the total velocity interaction applied to both bodies while the mass of the lesser object will involved from each particular object.

 

The product of such an equation must be devided in half to allow it to apply to one frame of the two frame minimum relationship of the universe.

 

 

I think the underlying fundamental operation of the universe is the same relationship between two such things, a minimum of two things.

 

The act of two things interacting can create what appears as one particular event or object but is only a result of a minimum two characteristcs interacting.

 

Futhermore, even though all events and actions must be from a relationship of a minimum of two things (and fundamental particals being the fundamental relationship) the two things (things being actions (made up of relationships, made up of relationships) can be of many version but always reduced to ONE fundamental. An absolute force, an absolute fabric, an absolute material.

 

Absolute in that it must always be and always have been for any existence to currently be.

[Boerseun]

You're all wrong.

 

The Universe, in fact, revolves around a very faint star called Stanley in the outer reaches of a very standard hum-drum galaxy about three and a half billion light-years (and counting) away from planet Earth. In fact, if you look very carefully with a moderately powerful telescope about nine degrees left of Sirius, you won't see it. Chances are you also won't see the vast fleet of interstellar hyperspace-capable planet destroying battleships they've launched to come and bust up planet Earth for harbouring a geocentric conceit for thousands of years. They're coming to set the record straight.

 

At full hyperspace thrust, they should be here by around 122,349A.D., probably late in June. Be ready. Forwarned is forarmed!

[CraigD]

From either perspective, each one is "falling" towards the other at the same rate. So, the sun infact revolves around the earth.

Although The Earth and the Sun experience the same force toward one another ([math]Force = \frac{G Mass_{Sun} Mass_{Earth}}{Distance_{Sun:Earth}[/math]), they don’t experience the same acceleration ([math]Acceleration_{Earth} = \frac{Force}{Mass_{Earth}} \neq Acceleration_{Sun} = \frac{Force}{Mass_{Sun}[/math]). I’d interpret “rate of falling” as a synonym for acceleration, so the Earth is falling toward the Sun at about 333000 times the rate that the Sun is falling toward the Earth (about 0.005 m/s/s).

 

Another way to approach the “-centricism” question is to define the “central” body in a gravitational system as “most important” – that is, the body who’s absence would most profoundly change the whole system. If the Earth were removed from the solar system, the other major planets and most of the minor planets would be nearly unaffected. If the Sun were removed, the major planets and their respective moons would move rapidly apart from one another – the solar system would be dramatically changed.

 

So, the appropriate “-centrism” depends on the system you’re interested in. For Moon and artificial satellites of the Earth, geocentrism is a good choice. For the planets, heliocentrism’s best. For stars, galactocentrism’s the way to go – though galaxies don’t have the majority of their mass concentrated in a single central body. For galaxies – it’s hard to chose a good “-centrism” word, but something like “galaxy-cluster-centric” might serve.

[IDMclean]

Then in theory, if you drop two different bodies of mass, they should fall at different rates. If acceleration is based on the bodies' mass.

[Erasmus00]

Then in theory, if you drop two different bodies of mass, they should fall at different rates. If acceleration is based on the bodies' mass.

 

The acceleration of ANY object toward the Earth (to Newtonian accuracy) is [math]\frac{F}{M_{object}}=\frac{GM_{earth}}{r^2} [/math] so if you drop two objects and look at how they fall toward the Earth, it does not depend on their masses. They fall at the same rate. GR rests on this observation.

-Will

[IDMclean]

Exactly my point.

 

 

[math]\frac{F}{m_{earth}} = \frac{Gm_{sun}}{r^2}[/math]

likewise:

[math]\frac{F}{m_{sun}} = \frac{Gm_{earth}}{r^2}[/math]

[markjwyatt]

I would have to agree with the title of this thread. I just helped Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. and Robert Bennett, Ph.D. produce the cdrom version of their book Galileo Was Wrong. This book is over 1000 pages of scientific evidence that shows that observation after observation and experiment after experiment indicate that the earth is at the center and does not move. Science consistently ignores what they see, and produces more and more complicated theories to reconcile their assumption (the earth does move and is not at the center) with the observations.

 

The book explains all the common objections to geocentrism (Foucault's pendulum, lighter orbits heavier, Coriolis forces, parallax, etc.), and also illustrates how general relativity supports geocentrism, as well as ether theory.

 

This is a serious book. On my personal blog you will find lots of information about the book, as well as geocentrism in general. The link is in my profile. I guess I cannot post a link here for 10 posts.

 

Mark Wyatt

[IDMclean]

Mark, you misunderstand my point, Not only is the Earth the center, but so is the Sun. Helio-geo centerism, are both perfectly valid. Each one is correct in my view.

 

It all depends on your point(non-dimensional body, usually associated with a direction, via line) of view(perception, relative position to another point or collection of points).

[Michaelangelica]

Mark, you misunderstand my point, Not only is the Earth the center, but so is the Sun. Helio-Geo centerism, are both perfectly valid. Each one is correct in my view.

 

It all depends on your Point(non-dimensional body, usually associated with a direction, via line) of View(perception, relative position to another point or collection of points).

 

Relativly of course they are correct.

 

It is the assumptions that were drawn from those views which are incorrect.

[IDMclean]

Geocentrism as an absolute is incorrect, and likewise heliocentrism as an absolute is incorrect as well. They are relative truths.

 

Further the Mean-centrism is also a relative truth. Mean-centrism is the view that everything orbit's around a common attraction point, which I forget how it's found but it's part of the n-Body gravity systems.

[Boerseun]

There's no need gettin' all technical about it.

 

Space have been expanding equally and in all directions from the 'point' where the Big Bang originated. Therefore, every single point in space you'd care to mention is the exact center of the universe. Run time backwards, and at t=o all points in space are the same point. Geocentrism, Mars-centrism, Plutocentrism, Alpha Centauri-centrism, all of these are equally correct.

You as an individual, are indeed the center of the universe. And you, and you, and you, and you in the back there, and you, too, and you...

[Jay-qu]

to true Boerseun, every point has equal validity in claiming that they are at the centre.

[IDMclean]

Now, this brings me to a hypothesis.

 

In examination of systems that support this, I have come on only one, in which such holds true.

 

Hyperspheres. In which their boundary is arbitrary and constant. As any point in this system can be designated as center, and oddly enough, all things revolve around this/these points. Depending on POV.

An interesting facet of this system is that any given body, that moves a boundary distance, r, will end up at it's origin point. However, if the vector of a given body moving r is changed then the particle can instantly appear at another point.

 

This indicates to me that we live in one of two environments. The first a local deterministic environment, and the second is a hypersphere-symmetric void, as space-time is a function of matter.

 

Furthermore, it maybe speculated that if the case is a Hypersphere-symmetric system then it is possible for a holographic universe to come to be with one or more original bodies of matter.

[Michaelangelica]

 

Hyperspheres. In which their boundry is arbitary and Constant. As any point in this system can be designated as center, and oddly enough, all things revolve around this/these points. Depending on POV.

An interesting facet of this system is that any given body, that moves a boundry distance, will end up at it's origin point. However, if vector of the given body moving the given distance is changed then the particle can instantly appear at another point.

 

This indicates to me that we live in one of two enviroments. One is Localized Determinism, and Two is Hypersphere-symetric void/vacuum, as space-time is a function of matter.

 

Further it maybe speculated that if the case is Hypersphere-symetry then it is possible for a holographic universe to come to be, with one or more originial bodies of matter.

 

I hope you know what you are talking about because I don't have the slightest clue

 

"any given body, that moves a boundry distance, will end up at it's origin point." translates to?