Index of Experiments Which Tend to Demonstrate that the Earth is NOT Moving

[T Pagano]

Index of experiments which tend to show that the Earth is not translating
around the Sun, the Galaxy or anywhere else.

1. Einstein realized that not only did the Michelson-Morley results show
that the Earth was not moving through the ether, but that this was
denying to heliocentricists the only explanation available (Fresnel's
Wave Theory) to deal with Airy's results. If heliocentricists couldn't
use Fresnel to answer Airy's Experiments then they would have to resign
themselves to admitting that the Earth was motionless. This resignation
was scientifically justified but philosophically abhorrent.

2. As a result Einstein argued that Michelson-Morley didn't show that the
earth was stationary because the ether didn't exist. Unfortunately this
conflicted with Maxwell's theory. However, it didn't matter.
Heliocentricism/Copernicanism had become the screed of secular society
and any solution to avoid the Earth being in a special place would be
accepted.

3. Lorentz disagreed with Einstein about the ether and made a different
attempt to avoid a stationary Earth. Lorentz (together with some
colleagues) argued that the arm of the Michelson-Morley interferometer
moving in the direction of the Earth's translation around the Sun
shortened while the arm perpendicular to the translation did not. This
caused a false reading leading to a motionless Earth. Lorentz contrived
a mathematical "fudge factor" (now called the Lorentz Transformation) to
exactly account for the Michelson Morley results. The fact that there
was no physical explanation of how matter "shrinks" while in motion (then
or now) didn't matter. The Lorentz Transformation was not some genius
bit of science but a mathematical contrivance to explain away the
Michelson-Morley results.

4. In 1913 Sagnac's experiments proved, definitively, that the ether
existed and measured absolute rotation (which crashed relativity).
Einstein all but ignored Sagnac except to indicate that SR was not valid
for anything but linear motion.




______________________________________________________
Evidence that the Earth does NOT translate around the Sun or the
Milky Way CONTRADICTING Heliocentricism
------------------------------------------------------------

1. Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments
2. Dayton C. Miller interferometer Experiments
3. George Airy's stellar aberration experiment

[Tim Anderson]

Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg
Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.

Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a regular orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show your work.

[Wolffan]

On 21Jan 2018, Tim Anderson wrote
(in article<be5f5af9-cd36-4326...@googlegroups.com>):

Pagano’s Law of Geocentric Confusion. And Newton was obviously wrong, or if
he was right, you’re applying his work wrong. So there.

[jillery]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 06:28:25 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I bet 100 quatloos the Pagano will obfuscate with references to a
barycenter or the mathematics of equivalent motion.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[gdguarino]

A simpler question is how an object can remain stationary in the presence of an imbalance of gravitational forces. As Tony has apparently forgotten from his last foray here, there is simply no way to square a stationary earth with Newton's laws. Even if we assume a universe that has a center of mass, and we assume the Earth is located precisely at that point, F=ma demands that the Earth move, due to the net gravitational force that acts on it. Saying that there is no net gravitational force at the center of mass of a system (again, even assuming that is a meaningful concept as regards our universe) is simply wrong, and easily proven so. There is no conceivable set of masses that could counterbalance the gravity of our Sun.

It's Geocentrism or Newton. You can't have both.

[Bruce Stephens]

On 21/01/2018 13:17, jillery wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 06:28:25 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21Jan 2018, Tim Anderson wrote
>> (in article<be5f5af9-cd36-4326...@googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg
>>> Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
>>> Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
>>>
>>> Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a regular
>>> orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show your work.
>>
>> Pagano’s Law of Geocentric Confusion. And Newton was obviously wrong, or if
>> he was right, you’re applying his work wrong. So there.
>
>
> I bet 100 quatloos the Pagano will obfuscate with references to a
> barycenter or the mathematics of equivalent motion.

And once you add the moon (much smaller, but much closer, and obviously
has a gravitational effect on us) it's surely not plausible for the
earth to be physically stationary.

Only way to imagine it working is with the moon, other planets, and sun
trapped in some way (such as in crystal spheres): i.e., only way to make
the earth fixed in the universe is to nail it there.

And that surely must be abandoned once you have lenses good enough that
you can see that other planets have moons. Once you see that, it's
surely obvious that it's better to have the earth moving. Trying to make
it stationary is just silly.

[Mark Isaak]

On 1/21/18 8:22 AM, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> On 21/01/2018 13:17, jillery wrote:
>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 06:28:25 -0500, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21Jan 2018, Tim Anderson wrote
>>> (in article<be5f5af9-cd36-4326...@googlegroups.com>):
>>>
>>>> Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg
>>>> Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
>>>> Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
>>>>
>>>> Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a
>>>> regular
>>>> orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show your
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> Pagano’s Law of Geocentric Confusion. And Newton was obviously wrong,
>>> or if
>>> he was right, you’re applying his work wrong. So there.
>>
>>
>> I bet 100 quatloos the Pagano will obfuscate with references to a
>> barycenter or the mathematics of equivalent motion.
>
> And once you add the moon (much smaller, but much closer, and obviously
> has a gravitational effect on us) it's surely not plausible for the
> earth to be physically stationary.

You are forgetting that the Earth is held in place by the immense,
unmovable force of Pagano's ego.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bill Rogers]

Tony has adapted the Gish Gallop to Geocentrism. I'm not sure what source he's getting these arguments from, but it's clearly not from his personal understanding of physics. In any case, it's hard to respond to so many errors all at once. But for anyone who is interested here is a site that compiles everything that's wrong with the New Geocentrism...

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-science/
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrism-and-the-catholic-church/

[Mike Franklin]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 8:25:05 AM UTC-8, Bruce Stephens wrote:
>
> Only way to imagine it working is with the moon, other planets, and sun
> trapped in some way (such as in crystal spheres): i.e., only way to make
> the earth fixed in the universe is to nail it there.

Of course- if it hadn't been nailed there it would have muscled up to those bars and VOOM!

[T Pagano]

1. If the two bodies make up an isolated system then there is no doubt
that the COM is closer to the body with more mass. But that is *not* the
case here.

2. Since heliocentricists claim that the Milky Way has a sufficiently
powerful gravitational field to hold the earth (and the other bodies in
our Solar System) within an orbit what justification do you offer for
ignoring not only the gravitational effects of the Milky Way but the
billions of other galaxies which appear to be in shells surrounding the
Earth?

3. You equally ignore the fact that the geoCentric model is not static
but that all the masses in the universe are rotating around the Earth
applying a centrifugal force to the Sun and the Moon.

4. Are you forgetting Newton's Sphere? If the shell of the sphere is
rotating about a fixed center Einstein, Mach and Thiring all explicitly
claimed that all the forces experienced at the Earth would be identical
to the heliocentric model. All three also opined that as an added
benefit the geocentric model had a physical explanation for Centrifugal/
Coriolis forces which the heliocentric model lacked.

5. Try again?

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 16:05:03 UTC+2, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:
>
> > Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
> > Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
> >
> > Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a
> > regular orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show
> > your work.
>
> 1. If the two bodies make up an isolated system then there is no doubt
> that the COM is closer to the body with more mass. But that is *not* the
> case here.
>
> 2. Since heliocentricists claim that the Milky Way has a sufficiently
> powerful gravitational field to hold the earth (and the other bodies in
> our Solar System) within an orbit what justification do you offer for
> ignoring not only the gravitational effects of the Milky Way but the
> billions of other galaxies which appear to be in shells surrounding the
> Earth?

What you mean? Gravity of Sun holds the bodies of our star
system around Sun. Sun is relatively close to edge of Milky Way and it
holds Sun circling around center of it (with period of 225 million years).

> 3. You equally ignore the fact that the geoCentric model is not static
> but that all the masses in the universe are rotating around the Earth
> applying a centrifugal force to the Sun and the Moon.

Show your calculations why whole Milky Way just does not fly away
but instead orbits Earth at insane speeds with period of 1 day. Why
hundreds of light years farther objects have same period? It just
does not make sense.

> 4. Are you forgetting Newton's Sphere? If the shell of the sphere is
> rotating about a fixed center Einstein, Mach and Thiring all explicitly
> claimed that all the forces experienced at the Earth would be identical
> to the heliocentric model. All three also opined that as an added
> benefit the geocentric model had a physical explanation for Centrifugal/
> Coriolis forces which the heliocentric model lacked.

You apparently just copy-paste nonsense that you do not understand
from somewhere. People tell you that. Read up on Newton's spheres
(notice the plural). These are two masses bound together by a string
orbiting around common center of mass.
.
> 5. Try again?

It was likely pointless of anyone to reply you.

[John Harshman]

I don't think that's the sphere he's talking about. What he means by
"Newton's sphere" is a spherical shell of symmetrical density. But that
has no connection to the bit that follows, so he is confused. Well, he's
confused about lots more than that, but that is one thing he's confused
about.

[T Pagano]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:

***************ANDERSON MISUNDERSTANDS NEWTON'S LAWS*********************

1. Newton's laws don't state or imply, necessarily, that a smaller mass
rotates around a larger mass.

2. His laws instead reveal that of two or more bodies in a rotating
system all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (COM).

3. The center of gravity (COG) for a system is a point about which the
sum of the moments of the gravitational forces on the system is 0. In
other words one can place any mass at the Center of Gravity (COG) for a
system of rotating bodies and it will NOT move or rotate. See where I'm
going?


***********ANDERSON SUFFERS FROM UNSTATED BUT FALSE ASSUMPTIONS***********

1. If the Earth-Sun system under examination was closed, then the center
of mass (COM) for *that* closed system would be close to the COM of the
Sun. However the Earth and Sun are *not* isolated from the rest of the
universe.

2. The actual system under examination doesn't and can't ignore the
other bodies in the GeoCentric Model. This includes all the other
uniformly distributed masses in the universe rotating around the Earth
which is co-located at the model's COM/COG. A body at the COM/COG
experiences no forces and is at rest.

2. If the model of the universe (the system) under consideration was the
Big Bang Model----which is a rapidly-expanding, 3-dimensional hyperspace
for which there is no center----then there is no place for the Earth to
be at rest. But this isn't case with the GeoCentric Model.


*******************GEOCENTRIC MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE******************

1. The geoCentric universe can be idealized as a rotating Newton's
Sphere with the star field as the shell. It is a relatively stable
system; it neither expands nor contracts. It has a Euclidean center co-
located with the COM and the COG. The Earth is also co-located at the
COM/COG.

2. Hans Thirring demonstrated---considering a rotating Newton's Sphere
with the star field as the shell and Earth at the center----that the
rotating gravitational field of the star field induces centrifugal/
Coriolis forces experienced at Earth.

3. The rotating gravitational field of the "shell" also applies a real
centrifugal force to the other bodies within the shell----including our
Sun. That is, the gravitational vector on the Sun directed toward the
COM/COG of the GeoCentric Model is opposed by a Centrifugal Force applied
by the star field.



I think that about covers it.

[T Pagano]

[riskys...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 9:05:03 AM UTC-5, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:
>
> > Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
> > Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
> >
> > Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a
> > regular orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show
> > your work.
>
> 1. If the two bodies make up an isolated system then there is no doubt
> that the COM is closer to the body with more mass. But that is *not* the
> case here.
>
> 2. Since heliocentricists claim that the Milky Way has a sufficiently
> powerful gravitational field to hold the earth (and the other bodies in
> our Solar System) within an orbit what justification do you offer for
> ignoring not only the gravitational effects of the Milky Way but the
> billions of other galaxies which appear to be in shells surrounding the
> Earth?

We do not ignore. We *calculate*, using Newton's law of universal gravitation. And those calculations tell us that the gravitational effect of the Sun on the Earth vastly outweighs the rest of the universe put together. If you disagree, you could simply show us the calculation. It's just arithmetic - no fancy math involved.

Next we use Newton's most famous equation, f=ma. If there is a net gravitational force on the Earth, it will accelerate. You mention the gravitational effect of the Milky Way; an effect which is only sufficient to accelerate our solar system into an orbit some 10^17 km in radius. Any segment of that orbit would be nearly indistinguishable from a straight line. Why so feeble an effect of such a great mass? Distance. And Newton's law of gravitation, with it's "distance squared" term in the denominator.

Back to f=ma. The only way for the Earth to remain stationary is for some collection of masses to exactly balance out the effect of the Sun. And another set of masses to balance out the Moon. And each set of masses needs to orbit the earth exactly in sync with the Sun and Moon, but on the opposite side.

A set of concentric shells all orbiting at the same rate won't do it, even if such a thing remotely matched observation.

If you think anything about the Earth being at the center of mass of the universe saves Geocentrism, consult Newton's equations, and show your work.

>
> 3. You equally ignore the fact that the geoCentric model is not static
> but that all the masses in the universe are rotating around the Earth
> applying a centrifugal force to the Sun and the Moon.

I'm pretty sure you have no idea what "centrifugal force" means. But let's even give you that. Something about shells of galaxies pulls the Sun and Moon into different orbits in different planes and still allows say Neptune to orbit the Sun.

Silly as all of that is, fine. Let's assume it.

The Sun is still up there. Most days I can see it. Given Newton's laws, why is the Earth not pulled toward it? Show us the math.

You won't, of course. You never have, and never will. Is it that you can't do the math, or do you already know what it will show?

[John Harshman]

On 2/19/18 1:11 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:
>
>> Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
>> Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
>>
>> Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a
>> regular orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show
>> your work.
>
>
>
> ***************ANDERSON MISUNDERSTANDS NEWTON'S LAWS*********************
>
> 1. Newton's laws don't state or imply, necessarily, that a smaller mass
> rotates around a larger mass.
>
> 2. His laws instead reveal that of two or more bodies in a rotating
> system all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (COM).
>
> 3. The center of gravity (COG) for a system is a point about which the
> sum of the moments of the gravitational forces on the system is 0. In
> other words one can place any mass at the Center of Gravity (COG) for a
> system of rotating bodies and it will NOT move or rotate. See where I'm
> going?

Straight down a deep, deep hole. Once again you confuse the center of
mass (= center of gravity) with the spot of zero net force. Just not
true, as has been demonstrated to you many times.

> ***********ANDERSON SUFFERS FROM UNSTATED BUT FALSE ASSUMPTIONS***********
>
> 1. If the Earth-Sun system under examination was closed, then the center
> of mass (COM) for *that* closed system would be close to the COM of the
> Sun. However the Earth and Sun are *not* isolated from the rest of the
> universe.

True but irrelevant.

> 2. The actual system under examination doesn't and can't ignore the
> other bodies in the GeoCentric Model. This includes all the other
> uniformly distributed masses in the universe rotating around the Earth
> which is co-located at the model's COM/COG. A body at the COM/COG
> experiences no forces and is at rest.

Still not true. You are making this up out of nothing.

> 2. If the model of the universe (the system) under consideration was the
> Big Bang Model----which is a rapidly-expanding, 3-dimensional hyperspace
> for which there is no center----then there is no place for the Earth to
> be at rest. But this isn't case with the GeoCentric Model.

How does the geocentric model explain the cosmological red shift?

> *******************GEOCENTRIC MODEL OF THE UNIVERSE******************
>
> 1. The geoCentric universe can be idealized as a rotating Newton's
> Sphere with the star field as the shell. It is a relatively stable
> system; it neither expands nor contracts. It has a Euclidean center co-
> located with the COM and the COG. The Earth is also co-located at the
> COM/COG.

You misunderstand what Newton's sphere is, and no, the geocentric model
relies on general relativity, not Newtonian physics. Note: COM and COG
are two terms for the same thing.

> 2. Hans Thirring demonstrated---considering a rotating Newton's Sphere
> with the star field as the shell and Earth at the center----that the
> rotating gravitational field of the star field induces centrifugal/
> Coriolis forces experienced at Earth.

Only if general relativity is correct.

> 3. The rotating gravitational field of the "shell" also applies a real
> centrifugal force to the other bodies within the shell----including our
> Sun. That is, the gravitational vector on the Sun directed toward the
> COM/COG of the GeoCentric Model is opposed by a Centrifugal Force applied
> by the star field.

Wouldn't rotation of the earth also explain that?

> I think that about covers it.

You think: unwarranted assumption.

[Bill Rogers]

If Newtonian gravitation is correct, then the concentric, symmetric shells of mass outside the solar system exert no gravitational force at all on anything in the solar system - that's a simple undergraduate problem in calculus. And, for Newtonian mechanics that's true regardless of whether those spherical shells of mass out there are rotating or not.

If you went to say that frame dragging by the rotating shells induces centrifugal and Coriolis forces on the earth, then you have to invoke general relativity, which, in other posts, you keep claiming is false.

In both the Newtonian and GR cases the sun exerts a gravitational force (well, in GR it's a distortion of space-time that acts like a force) on the earth (as do the other planets, and the moon, to a lesser extent). If your rotating shells of mass are going to counteract the changing forces on the earth caused by the sun and the other planets, those shells cannot be symmetrical, and they'll have to shift their asymmetries in ways that carefully match the motions of the sun and the other planets.

Whenever these problems are pointed out to you, you just re-regurgitate the original material you've cribbed from geocentrist websites. It's obvious to everyone watching that basic bits of Newtonian mechanics are beyond you, never mind relativity.

[Mark Isaak]

On 2/19/18 1:05 PM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:
>
>> Mass of the Sun: 1.989 × 10^30 kg Mass of the Earth: 5.972 × 10^24 kg
>> Both measured using Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation.
>>
>> Question: what physical law allows the heavier object to to have a
>> regular orbital motion around the lighter but stationary object? Show
>> your work.
>
>
>
> ***************ANDERSON MISUNDERSTANDS NEWTON'S LAWS*********************
>
> 1. Newton's laws don't state or imply, necessarily, that a smaller mass
> rotates around a larger mass.
>
> 2. His laws instead reveal that of two or more bodies in a rotating
> system all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (COM).
>
> 3. The center of gravity (COG) for a system is a point about which the
> sum of the moments of the gravitational forces on the system is 0. In
> other words one can place any mass at the Center of Gravity (COG) for a
> system of rotating bodies and it will NOT move or rotate. See where I'm
> going?

Here is your assignment:

1. Write the equation to find the center of mass of two point masses, m1
and m2, separated by a distance d.

2. Write the equation to find the point at which the gravitational
forces of two masses, m1 and m2 separated by a distance d, sum to zero
(what you call COG above).

3. Solve each equation for masses m1=100, m2=1, and d=100.

If you cannot do that (and I believe you cannot), you have no business
discussing anything remotely related to gravity and/or mass.

[T Pagano]

On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:57:38 -0800, John Harshman wrote:

> On 2/19/18 1:11 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:


>> ***************ANDERSON MISUNDERSTANDS NEWTON'S
>> LAWS*********************
>>
>> 1. Newton's laws don't state or imply, necessarily, that a smaller
>> mass rotates around a larger mass.
>>
>> 2. His laws instead reveal that of two or more bodies in a rotating
>> system all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (COM).
>>
>> 3. The center of gravity (COG) for a system is a point about which the
>> sum of the moments of the gravitational forces on the system is 0. In
>> other words one can place any mass at the Center of Gravity (COG) for a
>> system of rotating bodies and it will NOT move or rotate. See where
>> I'm going?
>
> Straight down a deep, deep hole. Once again you confuse the center of
> mass (= center of gravity) with the spot of zero net force. Just not
> true, as has been demonstrated to you many times.

Nonsense. I clearly state above that the spot of 0 net force is at the
COG. However, in this case the current GeoCentric model places the COM,
the COG of the universe and the Earth at the same spot. Einstein, Mach
and Thirring found this to a perfectly valid model as idealized by a
rotating Newton's Sphere.

Furthermore Thirring ran Einstein's GR field equations and found that the
revolving shell of stars would account for the centrifugal and Coriolis
forces experienced on Earth with a real physical explanation
(gravitational field); and account for centrifugal forces on other bodies
within the shell of Newton's Sphere (an idealized geoCentric model).

You're arguing against Einstein, Mach and Thirring. At least you have
guts; Carlip wouldn't risk his professional reputation arguing against
Einstein who saved the world from a geoCentric universe implied by the
results of Michelson-Morley.

>
>> ***********ANDERSON SUFFERS FROM UNSTATED BUT FALSE
>> ASSUMPTIONS***********
>>
>> 1. If the Earth-Sun system under examination was closed, then the
>> center of mass (COM) for *that* closed system would be close to the COM
>> of the Sun. However the Earth and Sun are *not* isolated from the rest
>> of the universe.
>
> True but irrelevant.

In the modern geoCentric Model the COM and the COG of the universe are co-
located with the Earth. By definition no net force or torque is being
applied to any mass at that location. The GeoCentric model can be
idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.

Theoretically any body can be placed instantaneously at the COG for a
rotating system of bodies and there will be no net force or torque
applied to it. It is not part of the rotating system.



The rest snipped until you have a grasp of the geoCentric model and the
basics of Newtonian physics.

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/18 7:11 AM, T Pagano wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Feb 2018 15:57:38 -0800, John Harshman wrote:
>
>> On 2/19/18 1:11 PM, T Pagano wrote:
>>> On Sat, 20 Jan 2018 21:39:14 -0800, Tim Anderson wrote:
>
>
>>> ***************ANDERSON MISUNDERSTANDS NEWTON'S
>>> LAWS*********************
>>>
>>> 1. Newton's laws don't state or imply, necessarily, that a smaller
>>> mass rotates around a larger mass.
>>>
>>> 2. His laws instead reveal that of two or more bodies in a rotating
>>> system all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (COM).
>>>
>>> 3. The center of gravity (COG) for a system is a point about which the
>>> sum of the moments of the gravitational forces on the system is 0. In
>>> other words one can place any mass at the Center of Gravity (COG) for a
>>> system of rotating bodies and it will NOT move or rotate. See where
>>> I'm going?
>>
>> Straight down a deep, deep hole. Once again you confuse the center of
>> mass (= center of gravity) with the spot of zero net force. Just not
>> true, as has been demonstrated to you many times.
>
> Nonsense. I clearly state above that the spot of 0 net force is at the
> COG.

Yes, and this is wrong. You are using your own personal definition. To
the rest of the world, "center of gravity" refers to the center of mass,
also known as the center of balance.

> However, in this case the current GeoCentric model places the COM,
> the COG of the universe and the Earth at the same spot. Einstein, Mach
> and Thirring found this to a perfectly valid model as idealized by a
> rotating Newton's Sphere.

You completely misunderstand all three of those dudes. As has been
pointed out many times, this stationary earth model depends on the truth
of general relativity, which you reject, and doesn't make that the one
true frame of reference but one among many, which you also reject.

> Furthermore Thirring ran Einstein's GR field equations and found that the
> revolving shell of stars would account for the centrifugal and Coriolis
> forces experienced on Earth with a real physical explanation
> (gravitational field); and account for centrifugal forces on other bodies
> within the shell of Newton's Sphere (an idealized geoCentric model).

Ah, but does it account for, for example, the oblate shape of Jupiter?
No, even in a stationary earth frame, that's accounted for by Jupiter's
rotation, exactly as centrifugal force on earth is accounted for by
earth's rotation in any reference frame other than the one you prefer.

> You're arguing against Einstein, Mach and Thirring. At least you have
> guts; Carlip wouldn't risk his professional reputation arguing against
> Einstein who saved the world from a geoCentric universe implied by the
> results of Michelson-Morley.

You don't know what I'm saying, you don't know what Einstein, Mach, and
Thirring said, you don't know what Carlip said, and you don't even know
what you're saying.

>>> ***********ANDERSON SUFFERS FROM UNSTATED BUT FALSE
>>> ASSUMPTIONS***********
>>>
>>> 1. If the Earth-Sun system under examination was closed, then the
>>> center of mass (COM) for *that* closed system would be close to the COM
>>> of the Sun. However the Earth and Sun are *not* isolated from the rest
>>> of the universe.
>>
>> True but irrelevant.
>
> In the modern geoCentric Model the COM and the COG of the universe are co-
> located with the Earth. By definition no net force or torque is being
> applied to any mass at that location. The GeoCentric model can be
> idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.

No, once again you confuse the center of mass with the place of no net
force.

> Theoretically any body can be placed instantaneously at the COG for a
> rotating system of bodies and there will be no net force or torque
> applied to it. It is not part of the rotating system.

You don't know enough physics to make any claims about anything.

> The rest snipped until you have a grasp of the geoCentric model and the
> basics of Newtonian physics.

Ha!

[John Harshman]

On 2/27/18 7:11 AM, T Pagano wrote:

> In the modern geoCentric Model the COM and the COG of the universe are co-
> located with the Earth. By definition no net force or torque is being
> applied to any mass at that location. The GeoCentric model can be
> idealized as a rotating Newton's Sphere.
>
> Theoretically any body can be placed instantaneously at the COG for a
> rotating system of bodies and there will be no net force or torque
> applied to it. It is not part of the rotating system.

That isn't Newtonian physics, which has nothing to say about the effect
of the rotation of a spherical shell on objects within. Newton's sphere
is a shell of symmetrical mass distribution, and the point about that is
that the shell exerts zero net force on every point inside it, not just
the center. This has been explained to you too many times for you to
pretend you haven't seen it.

[Steven Carlip]

On 2/27/18 7:11 AM, T Pagano wrote:

[...]

> Furthermore Thirring ran Einstein's GR field equations and found that the
> revolving shell of stars would account for the centrifugal and Coriolis
> forces experienced on Earth with a real physical explanation
> (gravitational field); and account for centrifugal forces on other bodies
> within the shell of Newton's Sphere (an idealized geoCentric model).

No, he didn't.

Thirring's paper, "Über die Wirkung rotierender ferner Massen in der
Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie," appeared in Phys. Zeit. 19 (1918),
33-39, but there's a good English translation, "On the effect of
rotating distant masses in Einstein’s theory of gravitation," by
D. H. Delphenich, that you can find (free) if you look on Google
Scholar. Read it, and find a place where he says what you claim.
(Hint: you can't.)

What Thirring found was
(1) an effect of the same general form as centrifugal force, but tiny;
(2) an effect of the same general form as Coriolis force, but also tiny;
(3) a third effect, also tiny, that acting like a force pushing objects
toward the equator.

Subsequent work looked at what would happen if you tried to ramp up the
effect to something larger than the incredibly tiny result Thirring
found. (Thirring couldn't do this -- the necessary mathematics wasn't
available in 1918.) You can find a description in, for example, Orwig,
Phys. Rev. D18 (1978) 1757-1763. The answer is that you need stronger
and stronger stresses to keep the shell from either flying apart or
collapsing under its own weight. If you try to reproduce the actual,
observed centrifugal and Coriolis forces, you need infinite stresses.

So, no, Thirring certainly did not find "that the revolving shell of

stars would account for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces experienced

on Earth."

Steve Carlip

[John Harshman]

The main question, which Tony is incompetent to ask, is whether it's
possible to have a valid GR frame of reference in which the earth is
stationary and non-rotating.