Food for thought

  • 21 Replies
  • 2812 Views
Food for thought
« on: May 22, 2019, 03:17:08 AM »
The geocentric flat earth has ...

• No working model, or map.
• No way to determine proper distances, or directions between two point on the earth not sharing the same longitude.
• No explanation for how the sun and the moon circle the earth, or how the sun migrates from the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer and back over the year.
• No idea why the ancient Greeks such as Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes and Aristarchus believed the earth was a sphere.
• No idea what P and S shockwaves detected by seismology equipment tells us about the internal structure of the earth, and the shape and dimensions of the surface of the earth.
• No idea what powers the sun and the stars.
• No idea of the distance to the stars.
• Clueless as to why almost all stars don't appear to change position in the sky from opposite sides of earth's orbit around the sun when the phenomena of parallax says they should, and why we can only use the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars that are closest to the earth. Luckily, Polaris is one that we can determine the distance to using parallax, because it is also a Cepheid variable star, which allows the distance to be measured to much more distant stars where the parallax method not longer works.
• No idea of the distance from the earth to the planets, or even much about them at all.
• No idea why binary stars obey Newton's law of gravitation.
• No explanation as to why we can only see 59% of the total surface area of the moon when, from a flat earth perspective we should be able to see most of it, including the dark side of the moon.
• No idea why the moon appears upside down in the southern hemisphere compared to how it looks in the northern hemisphere, and why the phases of the moon are on opposite sides of the Moon, and why it looks circular from all vantage points on the earth.
• No idea why sunspots rotate in the opposite direction in the southern and northern hemispheres, or even what sun spots are.
• No believable explanation for how GPS is implemented across the world.
• No explanation as to why aircraft carry ring laser gyros onboard capable of detecting the rotation of the earth.
• No idea how it is possible to develop gravitational maps of the earth's surface, or why anyone would want one, or how they could be used.
• No explanation for how eclipses work, especially lunar eclipses, or how to predict them correctly.
• No idea why the Humber bridge, the Verrazzano Narrows bridge are built to account for the earth's curvature.
• No idea why CERN, LIGO and the Stanford linear accelerator vacuum rings and arms are constructed to take account of the earth's curvature.
• No idea why physicists working on LIGO, the gravity wave detector, were awarded Nobel prizes in physics.
• No idea why geodetic surveyors keep claiming the earth is an oblate spheroid.
• No idea why Google Earth does not publish its underlying flat earth model that allows it to project the earth as a globe.
• No explanation as to why the sun rises due east for everyone on the earth on the equinox.
• No idea why an observer on the equator during an equinox does not see the sun set at an angle 19° above the horizon.
• No idea why there should be a discernible horizon that looks like the edge of the ocean viewed from a beach. The horizon should really be a blur as the farther we look out across the flat earth, the more light is scattered and the more particles in the atmosphere obscuring the view.
• No idea how it is possible to see the sun set twice simply by changing your height above the earth (quickly by just a few tens of metres).
• No reasonable explanation as to how Polaris can be used in conjunction with a sextant in the northern hemisphere to determine latitude.
• No explanation as to why the Artic and Antarctic experience months of days and nights at differ times of the year.
• No explanation why bright little objects called satellites by some are regularly visible in the night sky following a predicted path across the sky
• No explanation for how tides work.
• No explanation how (most times) boats disappear over the horizon when they should be visible on a flat earth.
• No explanation as to why the horizon does not rise to eye level.
• No credible explanation why helium balloons fitted with non-fish eye cameras often detect the curvature of the earth.
• No credible explanation for the existence of the "Downward" force called gravity.
• No explanation that does not implicitly make use of the theory of gravity for the atmospheric pressure gradient from high to low pressure with altitude, especially if we live in a dome.
• No idea why (almost without exception) hurricanes and typhoons rotate in opposite directions in northern and southern hemispheres respectively.
• No explanation for the Coriolis effect observable in controlled experiments such as those conducted by Ascher H. Shapiro in the 1960s.
• No explanation as to why the northern celestial pole rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and the southern celestial pole rotates clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
• No idea what Antarctica even looks like, and where the South Pole is physically located.
• No idea why Venus has phases. Bye bye Geocentric system.
• No idea why planets, e.g. Mars, exhibit retrograde motion. Hello Heliocentric system.
• No idea why the planets and their moons in the solar system appear to be obeying Newton's laws of planetary motion.
• No explanation whatsoever why Stellar Aberration occurs.
• No idea why clouds are illuminated from the bottom at sun set.
• Can't explain how a commercial aircraft can fly from Perth to Sydney in only 4 hours 10 mins, as to achieve this, it would need to fly faster than an F18 on afterburner all the way.
• No idea why the CO2 atmosphere of Mars appears to "Cling" to the exterior of its spherical spinning surface without the need for physical containment. This phenomenon is observable on others planets too.
• No idea why the sun and the moon don't change in angular size from rising to setting by a factor of 2 to 3 since they are local to the earth, and no idea why the sun according to the inverse law of radiation is not 4 to 9 times brighter at midday than at sunset and sunrise when viewed from Australia.
• No credible reason why millions of people (mostly scientists, engineers and technicians ) over decades would lie to keep the globe earth alive, and why nations and commercial enterprises, accountable to the voters and shareholders respectively, would spend (waste) $2 trillion a year , each and every year to maintain the globe lie.
• No idea how it is possible to measure the value of G, the universal gravitational constant and in so doing, verify the theory of gravity.
• No scientific papers publish in the last 100 years supporting the flat earth.

Now the globe earth and the heliocentric model have answers that are consistent with each other to all of the above that the flat earth can't explain, but the globe earth is wrong and the flat earth is correct , even although the flat earth model is almost useless at explaining anything?

Have I understood the situation correctly?

The flat earth is gaslighting to the power infinity.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #1 on: May 22, 2019, 02:42:22 PM »
Tldr; GTFO.
Great response. Once again Globe wins and reality deniers lose :)
Any post longer than 6 words is tl;dr for Hoppy. His attention span is slightly longer than that of a goldfish.

Even so, there was so much "Food for thought" there that it would choke any Flat Earther.

Maybe you could have broken it up into logical sections and spoon-fed it to readers.

I think the FE rule is " One question at a time ."
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #2 on: May 22, 2019, 03:03:03 PM »
The geocentric flat earth has ...

• No working model, or map.
• No way to determine proper distances, or directions between two point on the earth not sharing the same longitude.
• No explanation for how the sun and the moon circle the earth, or how the sun migrates from the tropic of Capricorn to the tropic of Cancer and back over the year.
• No idea why the ancient Greeks such as Pythagoras, Aristotle, Eratosthenes and Aristarchus believed the earth was a sphere.
• No idea what P and S shockwaves detected by seismology equipment tells us about the internal structure of the earth, and the shape and dimensions of the surface of the earth.
• No idea what powers the sun and the stars.
• No idea of the distance to the stars.
• Clueless as to why almost all stars don't appear to change position in the sky from opposite sides of earth's orbit around the sun when the phenomena of parallax says they should, and why we can only use the parallax method for measuring the distance of stars that are closest to the earth. Luckily, Polaris is one that we can determine the distance to using parallax, because it is also a Cepheid variable star, which allows the distance to be measured to much more distant stars where the parallax method not longer works.
• No idea of the distance from the earth to the planets, or even much about them at all.
• No idea why binary stars obey Newton's law of gravitation.
• No explanation as to why we can only see 59% of the total surface area of the moon when, from a flat earth perspective we should be able to see most of it, including the dark side of the moon.
• No idea why the moon appears upside down in the southern hemisphere compared to how it looks in the northern hemisphere, and why the phases of the moon are on opposite sides of the Moon, and why it looks circular from all vantage points on the earth.
• No idea why sunspots rotate in the opposite direction in the southern and northern hemispheres, or even what sun spots are.
• No believable explanation for how GPS is implemented across the world.
• No explanation as to why aircraft carry ring laser gyros onboard capable of detecting the rotation of the earth.
• No idea how it is possible to develop gravitational maps of the earth's surface, or why anyone would want one, or how they could be used.
• No explanation for how eclipses work, especially lunar eclipses, or how to predict them correctly.
• No idea why the Humber bridge, the Verrazzano Narrows bridge are built to account for the earth's curvature.
• No idea why CERN, LIGO and the Stanford linear accelerator vacuum rings and arms are constructed to take account of the earth's curvature.
• No idea why physicists working on LIGO, the gravity wave detector, were awarded Nobel prizes in physics.
• No idea why geodetic surveyors keep claiming the earth is an oblate spheroid.
• No idea why Google Earth does not publish its underlying flat earth model that allows it to project the earth as a globe.
• No explanation as to why the sun rises due east for everyone on the earth on the equinox.
• No idea why an observer on the equator during an equinox does not see the sun set at an angle 19° above the horizon.
• No idea why there should be a discernible horizon that looks like the edge of the ocean viewed from a beach. The horizon should really be a blur as the farther we look out across the flat earth, the more light is scattered and the more particles in the atmosphere obscuring the view.
• No idea how it is possible to see the sun set twice simply by changing your height above the earth (quickly by just a few tens of metres).
• No reasonable explanation as to how Polaris can be used in conjunction with a sextant in the northern hemisphere to determine latitude.
• No explanation as to why the Artic and Antarctic experience months of days and nights at differ times of the year.
• No explanation why bright little objects called satellites by some are regularly visible in the night sky following a predicted path across the sky
• No explanation for how tides work.
• No explanation how (most times) boats disappear over the horizon when they should be visible on a flat earth.
• No explanation as to why the horizon does not rise to eye level.
• No credible explanation why helium balloons fitted with non-fish eye cameras often detect the curvature of the earth.
• No credible explanation for the existence of the "Downward" force called gravity.
• No explanation that does not implicitly make use of the theory of gravity for the atmospheric pressure gradient from high to low pressure with altitude, especially if we live in a dome.
• No idea why (almost without exception) hurricanes and typhoons rotate in opposite directions in northern and southern hemispheres respectively.
• No explanation for the Coriolis effect observable in controlled experiments such as those conducted by Ascher H. Shapiro in the 1960s.
• No explanation as to why the northern celestial pole rotates counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere, and the southern celestial pole rotates clockwise in the southern hemisphere.
• No idea what Antarctica even looks like, and where the South Pole is physically located.
• No idea why Venus has phases. Bye bye Geocentric system.
• No idea why planets, e.g. Mars, exhibit retrograde motion. Hello Heliocentric system.
• No idea why the planets and their moons in the solar system appear to be obeying Newton's laws of planetary motion.
• No explanation whatsoever why Stellar Aberration occurs.
• No idea why clouds are illuminated from the bottom at sun set.
• Can't explain how a commercial aircraft can fly from Perth to Sydney in only 4 hours 10 mins, as to achieve this, it would need to fly faster than an F18 on afterburner all the way.
• No idea why the CO2 atmosphere of Mars appears to "Cling" to the exterior of its spherical spinning surface without the need for physical containment. This phenomenon is observable on others planets too.
• No idea why the sun and the moon don't change in angular size from rising to setting by a factor of 2 to 3 since they are local to the earth, and no idea why the sun according to the inverse law of radiation is not 4 to 9 times brighter at midday than at sunset and sunrise when viewed from Australia.
• No credible reason why millions of people (mostly scientists, engineers and technicians ) over decades would lie to keep the globe earth alive, and why nations and commercial enterprises, accountable to the voters and shareholders respectively, would spend (waste) $2 trillion a year , each and every year to maintain the globe lie.
• No idea how it is possible to measure the value of G, the universal gravitational constant and in so doing, verify the theory of gravity.
• No scientific papers publish in the last 100 years supporting the flat earth.

Now the globe earth and the heliocentric model have answers that are consistent with each other to all of the above that the flat earth can't explain, but the globe earth is wrong and the flat earth is correct , even although the flat earth model is almost useless at explaining anything?

Have I understood the situation correctly?

The flat earth is gaslighting to the power infinity.
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2019, 03:03:35 PM »
And you haven't understood the situation correctly ignoring this. However as others pointed out, its rude and frankly unreasonable to have us address this huge list.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #4 on: May 22, 2019, 03:51:01 PM »
This isn't Wittenburg, and you aren't Luther.

The earth is perfectly reasonable, as much as an inanimate object can be. Expecting us to address 50 points in a single thread is not.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2019, 03:54:52 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2019, 04:52:05 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.
It is as perfectly valid to talk from the frame of reference of the earth which is still, as it is to talk of the earth which is moving or accelerating. There is no preferred frame.

This would actually be a threat against my theory which is admittedly sneaking in a preferred frame.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2019, 07:39:42 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.
It is as perfectly valid to talk from the frame of reference of the earth which is still, as it is to talk of the earth which is moving or accelerating. There is no preferred frame.
So long as you are talking about inertial Frames of Reference but Einstein was careful to distinguish between the two.
And an accelerating Earth is not an inertial Frame of Reference.

This was a matter that was of great concern to Einstein during has development of General Relativity.

Here are some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") and is the first part of that section:
Quote
Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")
What also attracted Einstein in this analysis was that it promised to remedy a defect he perceived in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.

In 1916, Einstein formulated this worry in a thought experiment. He imagined two fluid bodies in a distant part of space. These bodies, the reader quickly infers, are like stars or planets, which form roughly spherical shapes under their own gravity. Einstein further imagined that there is relative rotation between the two bodies about the axis that joins them. This relative rotation is verifiable by observers on each body, who can trace out the motion of the other body. Each would judge the other to be rotating.
It can happen in ordinary Newtonian physics that one of these bodies is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame and the other one is. In that case, the second rotating body will bulge but not the first. This effect arises on the earth. It rotates about the axis of its north and south poles. It bulges slightly at the equator as a result of centrifugal forces that seek to fling the matter of the earth away from this axis.

It would be entirely unacceptable, Einstein now asserted, were this to happen to two spheres in an otherwise empty space. For there is no difference in the observable relations between the two spheres. Each rotates with respect to the other. So why should just one bulge? The supposition of Newton's absolute space or of inertial systems, Einstein protested, was an inadequate explanation. Einstein demanded something observable to make the difference.
<< Then a discussion of "Mach's Principle." >>
And the discussions on whether rotational motion is or is not relative till hasn't stopped.

But for all practical situations in "our locality" linear motion is relative but rotational motion is absolute.

Quote from: John Davis
This would actually be a threat against my theory which is admittedly sneaking in a preferred frame.

Re: Food for thought
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2019, 09:27:24 AM »
And you haven't understood the situation correctly ignoring this. However as others pointed out, its rude and frankly unreasonable to have us address this huge list.

You don't have to address the huge list. Since the primary question is "Have I understood the situation correctly? " you can just find one point you disagree with and say "no."

Re: Food for thought
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2019, 10:08:40 AM »
Think you’ve overreached a bit there.

Flat earthers do have ideas about many of these things (often inconsistent and contradictory, but still).

You can now expect to be called an ignorant round earther for not understanding all the various “models”.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2019, 12:23:41 PM »
Well this is stupid. The geocentric model is the same as relativity. And no, not my interpretation. I think you meant the flat earth model.
Care to explain?
In Machian relativity the Tychonian Geocentric model might be the same as the Heliocentric model but definitely not in General Relativity.
It is as perfectly valid to talk from the frame of reference of the earth which is still, as it is to talk of the earth which is moving or accelerating. There is no preferred frame.
So long as you are talking about inertial Frames of Reference but Einstein was careful to distinguish between the two.
And an accelerating Earth is not an inertial Frame of Reference.

This was a matter that was of great concern to Einstein during has development of General Relativity.

Here are some of Einstein's thoughts on the matter Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle") and is the first part of that section:
Quote
Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle")
What also attracted Einstein in this analysis was that it promised to remedy a defect he perceived in both Newton's physics and in special relativity. In both, you will recall, it is just a brute fact that certain motions are distinguished as inertial. This, in Einstein's view, was worrisome. It was no better than the original idea that there is an ether state of absolute rest. There seemed to Einstein no good reason for why one state should be the absolute rest state rather than another. Correspondingly, Einstein saw no good reason for why some motions should be singled out as inertial and others as accelerating.

In 1916, Einstein formulated this worry in a thought experiment. He imagined two fluid bodies in a distant part of space. These bodies, the reader quickly infers, are like stars or planets, which form roughly spherical shapes under their own gravity. Einstein further imagined that there is relative rotation between the two bodies about the axis that joins them. This relative rotation is verifiable by observers on each body, who can trace out the motion of the other body. Each would judge the other to be rotating.
It can happen in ordinary Newtonian physics that one of these bodies is not rotating with respect to an inertial frame and the other one is. In that case, the second rotating body will bulge but not the first. This effect arises on the earth. It rotates about the axis of its north and south poles. It bulges slightly at the equator as a result of centrifugal forces that seek to fling the matter of the earth away from this axis.

It would be entirely unacceptable, Einstein now asserted, were this to happen to two spheres in an otherwise empty space. For there is no difference in the observable relations between the two spheres. Each rotates with respect to the other. So why should just one bulge? The supposition of Newton's absolute space or of inertial systems, Einstein protested, was an inadequate explanation. Einstein demanded something observable to make the difference.
<< Then a discussion of "Mach's Principle." >>
And the discussions on whether rotational motion is or is not relative till hasn't stopped.

But for all practical situations in "our locality" linear motion is relative but rotational motion is absolute.

Quote from: John Davis
This would actually be a threat against my theory which is admittedly sneaking in a preferred frame.
Both the reference frame of the earth and that of the sun are equally valid. All motion is only realizable through a reference point.

There would be no issue writing down the right metric for a system with Earth as the center and the Sun revolving around the earth; it would be a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, and would be equally predictive as one where the sun is the center of the universe (or some other point).

Show me an experiment that will show that the Earth is moving around the Sun and not otherwise. Then you will have proven your point and dismantled GR and SR in the process. There is NO preferred reference frame.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 12:42:55 PM by John Davis »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2019, 12:46:38 PM »
Also, the equivalence principle.

Re: Food for thought
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2019, 01:09:07 PM »
Go watch CHL videos on geocentrism, he makes great points and shows how we can prove the heliocentric model. Link provided here (). And even if the world was geocentric it still doesnt make it flat :)

Re: Food for thought
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2019, 01:57:54 PM »
This isn't Wittenburg, and you aren't Luther.

The earth is perfectly reasonable, as much as an inanimate object can be. Expecting us to address 50 points in a single thread is not.

Perhaps you dont need to answer these.
You coukd rely on the general scientific population to provide answers.
As well youve been at it for how many years?
Possibly the faq or janes conpendium could cross of a good number of these.

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #14 on: May 24, 2019, 07:44:22 AM »
I have answered them by pointing out the current astronomical model of round earther's can be geocentric.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #15 on: May 24, 2019, 08:30:18 PM »
The geocentric flat earth has ...

Flat Earth is not Geocentric. Those are two different systems.

Flat Earth (until 2500 years ago) depicts Earth as flat and puts it to the bottom, not to the center, and puts one, single dome above.

Geocentrism (from 2500 till 400 years ago) presents Earth as a static globe, puts it in the center, and puts several concentric crystal spheres around it, each carrying its own set of celestial bodies.
« Last Edit: May 24, 2019, 08:32:01 PM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #16 on: May 25, 2019, 05:37:21 AM »

Both the reference frame of the earth and that of the sun are equally valid. All motion is only realizable through a reference point.
I assume that be "All motion is only realizable through a reference point" you mean that all motion is relative.
That seems to be Mach's Principle, which asserts that inertial effects (acceleration and rotation) on a test mass are due to the motion of all other objects in the Universe and not simply the motion of that test mass.

Einstein was greatly influenced by Mach's Principle (and that name is due to Einstein).
He initially tried to develop a theory of relativity that included gravitation in which all motion (including acceleration) was relative but found it was not possible to do that and still reduce to Newton's Laws in the zero velocity/zero mass limit.

Details of the development of General Relativity can be found in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity John D. Norton, Index.
This and following sections referring to Mach's principle Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle").

The outcome of this is that while General Relative allows no single preferred reference frame only inertial motion (that is the motion of a particle along a geodesic in spacetime) is relative and can only be measured relative to other objects.
Local acceleration (that is the motion of a particle forced to deviate from a geodesic in spacetime) can, at least in principle, be measured locally by an accelerometer.

An object on a rotating Earth is subject to at least two such accelerations, one due to gravity another due to the rotation of the Earth.
If the earth were stationary (at least not rotating) the acceleration due to gravitation would still be present.
The difference could be detected in a number of ways:
  • A non-rotating plastic Earth would be perfectly spherical (Venus and the Sun are very nearly so) but the earth's ellipticity has been measured and agrees with the expected value derived from its rotation rate.

  • Coriolis and Eφtvφs effects are both detectable on the rotating Earth.

  • Gyroscopes and the Foucault pendulum detect an absolute rotation that seems relative to "the distant stars".

The rotation of the earth is measured very accurately by large ring laser gyroscopes as in the
VIII International Symposium “MODERN PROBLEMS OF LASER PHYSICS” (M p75 "Ring laser gyroscopes in the underground Gran Sasso Laboratories".

Quote from: John Davis
There would be no issue writing down the right metric for a system with Earth as the center and the Sun revolving around the earth; it would be a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, and would be equally predictive as one where the sun is the center of the universe (or some other point).
I doubt that Einstein or modern physicists would agree with you there: The earth rotates (causing an acceleration) and so does the sun.

Quote from: John Davis
Show me an experiment that will show that the Earth is moving around the Sun and not otherwise.
This is not "an experiment" but a measurement.
Stellar aberration, as first identified by James Bradley, is consistent with the earth orbiting the sun but not vice-versa,
see Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration by David Palm  or Math Pages, 2.5  Stellar Aberration
 

Quote from: John Davis
Then you will have proven your point and dismantled GR and SR in the process.
Not at all. Einstein was very clear that, much as he would have preferred all motion to be purely relative, acceleration, including rotation, could not be purely relative.
See the above references to Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity.
And this book isn't bad: Introduction to General Relativity by Lewis Ryder - all 459 pages.

Quote from: John Davis
There is NO preferred reference frame.
While there is no single preferred reference frame and inertial motion (along a geodesic - straight) cannot be determined by any local measurement local acceleration can be and is detected.

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #17 on: May 25, 2019, 06:02:29 AM »
Walnut, almond, cashew, broccoli, blueberry, strawberry, turmeric, avocado.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #18 on: May 25, 2019, 11:17:29 AM »
Walnut, almond, cashew, broccoli, blueberry, strawberry, turmeric, avocado.

Hahaha   :D

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 25431
  • The Only Yang Scholar in The Ying Universe
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #19 on: May 25, 2019, 11:52:40 AM »
Walnut, almond, cashew, broccoli, blueberry, strawberry, turmeric, avocado.

Hahaha   :D

Wut?  ??? salmon oil?

I believe that salmon oil is a manipulation. It's just a myth to make the Norwegians rich.
1+2+3+...+∞= 1

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2019, 10:18:57 AM »

Both the reference frame of the earth and that of the sun are equally valid. All motion is only realizable through a reference point.
I assume that be "All motion is only realizable through a reference point" you mean that all motion is relative.
That seems to be Mach's Principle, which asserts that inertial effects (acceleration and rotation) on a test mass are due to the motion of all other objects in the Universe and not simply the motion of that test mass.

Einstein was greatly influenced by Mach's Principle (and that name is due to Einstein).
He initially tried to develop a theory of relativity that included gravitation in which all motion (including acceleration) was relative but found it was not possible to do that and still reduce to Newton's Laws in the zero velocity/zero mass limit.

Details of the development of General Relativity can be found in Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity John D. Norton, Index.
This and following sections referring to Mach's principle Relativity of Inertia ("Mach's Principle").

The outcome of this is that while General Relative allows no single preferred reference frame only inertial motion (that is the motion of a particle along a geodesic in spacetime) is relative and can only be measured relative to other objects.
Local acceleration (that is the motion of a particle forced to deviate from a geodesic in spacetime) can, at least in principle, be measured locally by an accelerometer.

An object on a rotating Earth is subject to at least two such accelerations, one due to gravity another due to the rotation of the Earth.
If the earth were stationary (at least not rotating) the acceleration due to gravitation would still be present.
The difference could be detected in a number of ways:
  • A non-rotating plastic Earth would be perfectly spherical (Venus and the Sun are very nearly so) but the earth's ellipticity has been measured and agrees with the expected value derived from its rotation rate.

  • Coriolis and Eφtvφs effects are both detectable on the rotating Earth.

  • Gyroscopes and the Foucault pendulum detect an absolute rotation that seems relative to "the distant stars".

The rotation of the earth is measured very accurately by large ring laser gyroscopes as in the
VIII International Symposium “MODERN PROBLEMS OF LASER PHYSICS” (M p75 "Ring laser gyroscopes in the underground Gran Sasso Laboratories".

Quote from: John Davis
There would be no issue writing down the right metric for a system with Earth as the center and the Sun revolving around the earth; it would be a solution to the Einstein Field Equation, and would be equally predictive as one where the sun is the center of the universe (or some other point).
I doubt that Einstein or modern physicists would agree with you there: The earth rotates (causing an acceleration) and so does the sun.

Quote from: John Davis
Show me an experiment that will show that the Earth is moving around the Sun and not otherwise.
This is not "an experiment" but a measurement.
Stellar aberration, as first identified by James Bradley, is consistent with the earth orbiting the sun but not vice-versa,
see Geocentrism and Stellar Aberration by David Palm  or Math Pages, 2.5  Stellar Aberration
 

Quote from: John Davis
Then you will have proven your point and dismantled GR and SR in the process.
Not at all. Einstein was very clear that, much as he would have preferred all motion to be purely relative, acceleration, including rotation, could not be purely relative.
See the above references to Einstein's Pathway to General Relativity.
And this book isn't bad: Introduction to General Relativity by Lewis Ryder - all 459 pages.

Quote from: John Davis
There is NO preferred reference frame.
While there is no single preferred reference frame and inertial motion (along a geodesic - straight) cannot be determined by any local measurement local acceleration can be and is detected.

My understanding is the vast majority of physicists would say that relativity is not machian. Einstien himself held the same view. Look in his work: Ideas and Opinions where he states as much, himself without need to go to secondary and tertiary sources:
Quote from: Einstein
I was of course acquainted with Mach's view, according to which it appeared conceivable that what inertial resistance counteracts is not acceleration as such but acceleration with respect to the masses of the other bodies existing in the world. There was something fascinating about this idea to me, but it provided no workable basis for a new theory.

Quote
I doubt that Einstein or modern physicists would agree with you there: The earth rotates (causing an acceleration) and so does the sun.
Doubt all you'd like, this is mathematical fact and not my opinion.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 10:20:39 AM by John Davis »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17563
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: Food for thought
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2019, 10:59:40 AM »
Now, looking this back over, it seems you are saying that you can tell the earth is rotating, or that the sun is rotating. Yes, for example you can use traverse Doppler shifts; this invalidates Mach's principle, in actuality, as you can use this to differentiate between a rotating system in a rotating universe from a still system in a still universe.

None of this even pretends to attack the point that you can equally predict the motions of the heavens by assuming a geocentric view rather than a heliocentric (or other centric) view. The fact is that you can treat either as your frame of reference - inertial or non-inertial. Both Newtonian physics (for inertial) and Relativity (for both) have this trait. In relativity, you might end up solving for the rotating of either body (the sun or the earth, depending on which frame you choose) by using third-body effects, or you could do all the math the hard way.

Non-inertial rotating reference frames are as equally valid as inertial ones; you just have to consider their pseudo forces - in this case Coriolis, centrifugal and perhaps Euler if you account for the jerk of the earth or sun as they are slowing down over time slightly. Either is equally valid, and either would provide equal ability of prediction as is a mathematical necessity and follows from the field equations. I have yet to see a reason why I'd prefer one over the other.

Both the sun and moon rotate. Both are in non-inertial frames of reference otherwise. Both can be described using Einstein's field equations, and doing so for both would yield equal predictive power. Neither are even the gravitational center.

From here, it seems like the burden of proof is solidly on your side of the argument.

In case you forget:
Quote from: Wikipedia
Principle of Relativity: the requirement that the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all admissible frames of reference.

In other words, the laws of physics will appear the same regardless of what kind of observer you are - rotating, accelerating, jerking, or stationary - and what frame you choose. It is completely arbitrary what frame you choose.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2019, 11:07:13 AM by John Davis »