Thanks for the answers.Do you have a reason for why Earth would be the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: why would the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?And what property of this planet would allow for such a unique situation? The simplest kinetic model is the neo-Tychonic: Universe rotates carrying the sun with it. Originally Posted by RedPanda Do you have an explanation for how the Earth is the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: how can the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth? If earth is at the center, and there is only one center in the universe, then no other planets could be at the center.

Originally Posted by JoeSixPack The why is a philosophical question. Strars centered somewhere at or near the sun. Originally Posted by RedPanda Originally Posted by JoeSixPack Originally Posted by RedPanda Does geocentrism accept that all the planets in the solar system orbit the Sun – but with the exception of the Earth?And does it also accept that all the planets in other solar systems orbit their own sun – with no exceptions? Yes to the first. This is from Galileo Was Wrong by Drs.

I will cover three.First, in an aether universe possibly without universal gravity (e.g. Planets (earth not included) orbit the sun in local motion. Martin Selbrede has developed a concept called “geolock” based on work of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (Gravitation, pg. 119).

Alternatively, God put it there. Originally Posted by JoeSixPack Originally Posted by RedPanda Does geocentrism accept that all the planets in the solar system orbit the Sun – but with the exception of the Earth?And does it also accept that all the planets in other solar systems orbit their own sun – with no exceptions? Yes to the first.

If we want tocause the sphere to rotate clockwise, wewould need to turn the rods at the polesclockwise, and the ones at the equatorscounter-clockwise….This picture is clearthen: to turn the sphere, the rotation of theparticles (MTW’s “rods”) at the poles mustbe the opposite of that at theequator…However, in the case of a rotatingfirmament, all the particles are rotating inthe same direction, with the angular velocitycommon to the entire firmament. But on to more scientific questions, using the first “why” explanation as a model (not excluding the second and third).How is the earth placed/maintained there? This is a good question.

Earth is held in the center stationary. Strars centered somewhere at or near the sun. Sungenis and Bennett (5th ed. pgs. 361, 362).The gyroscope is rotationally at restrelative to the inertial frames in itsneighborhood.

But nearthe equator, because the fluid is draggedmore rapidly at small radii than at large,the end of a rod closest to the sphere isdragged by the fluid more rapidly than thefar end of the rod. At variouspoints in the fluid, set down little rods, andwatch how the fluid rotates them as itflows past. No – I meant “why” as in “Why do different objects of different weights fall at the same speed on the moon?”I’ll rephrase my previous question:Do you have an explanation for how the Earth is the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: how can the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?Also, the universe can’t be rotating around the Earth because (for example) the Sun’s motion is elliptical, yes? Originally Posted by JoeSixPack …3 theories… Kinetically you could say it orbits the sun orbits the earth, but it is not implied that the sun is gravitationally driven around the earth by the earth.

In the case of the second, it depends on what theory the geocentrist may hold, but in general I would say yes. Originally Posted by JoeSixPack Originally Posted by RedPanda Originally Posted by JoeSixPack Originally Posted by RedPanda Does geocentrism accept that all the planets in the solar system orbit the Sun – but with the exception of the Earth?And does it also accept that all the planets in other solar systems orbit their own sun – with no exceptions? Yes to the first.

It could be demonstratedthat were the Earth to be pushed out of its“station keeping” position, the uneven forcedistribution would return it to its equilibriumstate.Illustrations are presented in the book.Finally I would argue that the principle of relativity (if GR were true or even Mach’s principle) would hold that if we picked earth as a reference frame, the universe would produce the forces needed to maintain that reference frame, and from that I draw the conclusion it is possible (regardless of whether GR has been developed to the point of handling rigid bodies or not). I would just say for pueposes of scientific inquiries, just state that the universe happens to be rotating, and as a consequence the earth is in a sense trapped in the center. Usingcalculus, one integrates the effect from thecenter of the Earth outward in infinitesimalshells, showing that the Earth is in factlocked in place, the resulting inertial shearbeing distributed throughout the Earth’sinternal volume.

In the case of the second, it depends on what theory the geocentrist may hold, but in general I would say yes. Robert Sungenis and Dr. A well reasoned argument will never work.As Joe’s agenda is only the exposition of things people can’t say for certain.:EDIT:His motivation is hatred. Near the poles the fluid willclearly rotate the rods in the same directionas the star [i.e., sphere] rotates.

Again, if GR were applied to a stationary earth frame or a stationary sun (or solar barycentric frame), all expectations would be that things would look (kinematically) exactly as they do from earth’s perspective even as the reference frames changed, and thus the dynamics would adapt from frame to frame. Earth is held in the center stationary. Thanks for the answers.Do you have a reason for why Earth would be the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: why would the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?And what property of this planet would allow for such a unique situation?

Originally Posted by RedPanda Also, the universe can’t be rotating around the Earth because (for example) the Sun’s motion is elliptical, yes? This would be what is necessary locally to maintain the universal rotation. Thanks for the answers.Do you have a reason for why Earth would be the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: why would the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?And what property of this planet would allow for such a unique situation?

The simplest kinetic model is the neo-Tychonic: Universe rotates carrying the sun with it. Analogies work until they don’t.The sun is carried by the universe. It and the local inertialframes rotate relative to the distantgalaxies with the angular velocity ?because the Earth’s rotation “drags” thelocal inertial frames along with it. Thanks for the answers.Do you have a reason for why Earth would be the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: why would the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?And what property of this planet would allow for such a unique situation?

The simplest kinetic model is the neo-Tychonic: Universe rotates carrying the sun with it. Earth is held in the center stationary. Originally Posted by exchemist It’s obviously (trivially) true that one can legitimately choose a frame of reference centred on the Earth, if one wishes, and describe the motion of the sun and planets by appropriate geometrical constructions, as the Ptolemaic system did. Theequatorial inertial drag is in the oppositedirection as that acting near the poles. Both this and the heliocentric frame of reference are mathematical equals.

I know I am pushing GR beyond its currently developed limits, but I am referring to the principle of relativity also. As it rotates, the spherewill drag the fluid along with it. In the case of the second, it depends on what theory the geocentrist may hold, but in general I would say yes. Originally Posted by RedPanda Originally Posted by JoeSixPack Originally Posted by RedPanda Originally Posted by JoeSixPack should parents be held responsible for their children’s crimes essay
Originally Posted by RedPanda Does geocentrism accept that all the planets in the solar system orbit the Sun – but with the exception of the Earth?And does it also accept that all the planets in other solar systems orbit their own sun – with no exceptions? Yes to the first. Thanks for those.I’ll have to do some more reading before I comment on them.

It is available in book form or PDF.http://galileowaswrong.com/store/#!/…uct/id=6519316 Robert Bennett, Volume I (the scientific evidence). Planets (earth not included) orbit the sun in local motion. Dr.

Stokes), the aether flows impinge on the earth in such a way to maintain its position.Second, using a GR analogy. Do you have a reason for why Earth would be the only planet which has a sun orbiting it, when every other planet orbits their sun?To rephrase the question a little: why would the Sun orbit the Earth but the other planets not orbit the Earth?And what property of this planet would allow for such a unique situation?Ok – but do you have a reason for why the universe would be rotating around the Earth?And what would be holding the Earth stationary?{abe} Also, the universe can’t be rotating around the Earth, as the Sun’s motion is elliptical? The why is a philosophical question. Well put. Strars centered somewhere at or near the sun.

Planets (earth not included) orbit the sun in local motion. Also, the universe could be rotating with a small procession. If it were not possible, then for sure GR would not be true, and then the aether and other (i.e., classical mechanics + Mach for instance) theories would need to be considered.If you are truly interested, see Galileo Was Wrong, Dr. In the case of the second, it depends on what theory the geocentrist may hold, but in general I would say yes. For this reason I’ve always thought arguments about whether the sun goes round the earth or vice versa are rather silly: both are obviously true!

The point such arguments miss, it seems to me, is the hopeless weakness of a geocentric frame of reference when you seek a simple explanatory mechanism for the motions. Noticethat near the north and south poles thelocal inertial frames rotate in the samedirection as the Earth does (? parallel toJ), but near the equator they rotate in theopposite direction (? antiparallel to J;compare ? with the magnetic field of theEarth!).Misner, et al. then offer an analogy thatexplains the above relationship, although they arecareful in a footnote to say that, despite it being onlyan analogy, “This analogy can be mademathematically rigorous,” and thus they proceedwith the illustration:Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersedin a viscous fluid. The elegant simplicity offered by Newtonian gravitation and Kepler’s laws cannot work with a geocentric frame of reference.

Ok – but do you have a reason for why the universe would be rotating around the Earth?And what would be holding the Earth stationary?{abe} Also, the universe can’t be rotating around the Earth, as the Sun’s motion is elliptical? There are a number of theories. Alternatively, w totally misunderstand the nature of the cosmos, and have created a picture that is totally wrong. The elegant simplicity offered by Newtonian gravitation and Kepler’s laws cannot work with a geocentric frame of reference.

If aether is the true nature of space, then local aether flows could be causing the observed ellipticity. Consequently, the rodrotates in the direction opposite to therotation of the sphere.Selbrede reverses the situation for a rotating cosmos:Now reverse the situation.