View Single Post

04-29-2016, 04:56 AM
 sampojo Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 426
Smaller objects orbit larger ones

This post will cover how a body could occupy the center of a large collection of bodies (stars), with those bodies orbiting around the center body, with that being equivalent in forces (e.g. coriollis) to the shell of bodies rotating around the center, and the concept of a geometric center vs. the center of gravity.

The title of this post is an over-simplification of what actually happens. Bodies in the heavens always orbit their center of gravity. When a significantly smaller body and large body are involved as Galileo observed with the moons of Jupiter, the center of gravity is very near the the center of the larger body.. The geocentric theory is defined as the Earth is at the center of the universe. For the earth to be at the center of the universe, it needs to occupy the center of gravity. In my own research, I would generalize it to say center of forces, as I have a suspicion that a magnetic field of the universe may be at work also. However since I don't think we can even sufficiently quantify the masses of trillions of stars to determine gravitational forces, it is conjecture, but all scientific experiments over the past two centuries, often deemed failures, can and should be interpretted to prove that the Earth is motionless. (Science is finding galactic magnetic fields however. See primer field youtubes if you are curious.) There are two centers of the universe that must be worked through. They are the geometric center and the center of gravity.

Geocentrism is also known as "Mach's Principle" where it is postulated that the effects attributed to a rotating earth would be the same for a stationary earth and a rotating universe. Bowden has excellent youtubes here: (Why the sun circles the Earth) and (M. Bowden, YT:Geocentricity - Satellites+Mach). Ernst Mach lived 1838-1916 and his theory is completely Non-relativistic. This paper done in 1977 has demonstrated Mach's Principle: “Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework” J.B. Barbour and B. Bertotti. Il Nuovo Cimento, 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977 and this 2013 article - "THE DYNAMICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE GEOCENTRIC UNIVERSE" , on M. Bowden's site, where a shell of stars can be constructed that balance gravitation effects in the center.

We all need to recognize stellar parallax, where the diameter of Earth's so-called orbit around the Sun is used to estimate closer stellar distances using far stellar objects as essentially stationary, and measuring the closer star's shift to get a distance estimate. So how can stellar parallax work if the Earth is stationary in the center of the universe?

The condition for this to occur would be that there is a geometric center where concentric shells of stars of at least the closer objects are centered around the Sun. If all are aligned around the Sun, then the masses would have to balance forces around the Earth. This is essentially the difference between a median average calculation and a weighted average. This picture below shows the graphics used in the Journey movie.

In Geocentrism, this condition would arise only if there is a geometric alignment of the stars around the Sun, while the Earth would then occupy the center of forces. From the Journey movie, Dr. Sungenis found this in a modern astronomy curriculum to illustrate using the Tycho Geocentric model vs. the Copernican model. And of course the Special Theory of Relativity supports the equivalence of relative reference frames.

The modern "Cosmological Principle" as referred to in the movie The Principle is based on the Copernican Model. What an act of hubris, to take the Copernican theory and assign the name of the entire science to it. It seems an act of thought control, to promote the the scientific theory as if could never change. Theories must change or else science stagnates. I believe the fallacious nature of the Cosmological Principle can be demonstrated by analyzing experimental results with an open mind.

These experiments can be generalized to fall into two categories, those that actually have shown the Earth is stationary and those that show the universe is geometrically arranged in anisotropic or non-isotropic fashion, in violation of the basic tenant of the Big Bang Theory. These have to do with the map of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The anisotropies are strange in that the have surprising symmetries. They have given one of them a nice obtuse name, i.e. quantized red-shift. I will let you cogitate on that one for awhile!
Attached Images
 TychoParallax.png (826.1 KB, 0 views)
__________________
Up, Up and Away

Last edited by sampojo; 12-03-2017 at 06:25 AM. Reason: clarify logic