The evidence the mainstream puts forth for the moving Earth …

Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2) by ProperGander.

The evidence the mainstream puts forth for the moving Earth would seem to me to contradict the basic premise of the work of Einstein.

The same mainstream that parrots the null result of the Michelson–Morley experiment that was not quite ‘null’ and that worships Einstein, will point to ‘experiments’ that show the Earth rotating.

This kind of wrecks the whole point of Einstein’s time warping Relativity as well as putting a damper on Galileo’s ships’s cabin at sea Relativity.

There could be no constant velocity on a rotating body, technically speaking. We would have evidence of motion due to centrifugal force, we’d expect this force to effect everything we experience and it does not.

Earth’s bulge is another one. How do they measure it and what kind of massaging does the data undergo?

If Earth’s motion was quantifiable then even archery would become problematic if the arrow is shot North to South (as example).

1000mph at the equator still works out to quite a velocity at higher latitudes. 1000mph is .27 miles a second. Even a tenth of that would be a problem.

We also have to ignore the lack of centrifugal effect of Earth’s orbit and its acceleration around the Sun and any further compounded motion. In this model of the Universe we are supposed to be on a planet that travels at amazing speed that in no way compares to a state of constant velocity. Its like doing donuts in a car in a parking lot.

We simply cannot build a physical model for the heliocentric theory here on Earth. We can’t invoke any physical ‘law’ here on the surface of the Earth that in any way would allow us to do what Newton claimed in thought experiment.

I’d say for all practical purposes, its as if the Earth does not move.
If it is moving, then that motion is being transformed in some way into some other kind of work, like say some kind of magical force field that protects us from experiencing any of the motion we can demonstrate such systems would experience here on Earth.

ProperGander Also Commented

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
http://www.regentsprep.org/regents/physics/phys06/bcentrif/default.htm

“The smaller the velocity of the object, the less centripetal force you will have to apply.
The smaller the length of rope (radius), the more centripetal force you will have to apply to the rope.
Notice that the centripetal force and the centripetal acceleration are always pointing in the same direction.”

Does any of what we can demonstrate for ourselves really jibe with the fantastic and amazing ‘theories’ of philosophers like Galileo and Newton and the rest?

Gravity is the ‘centripetal’ force. The ‘centrifugal’ one is an illusion. Same would have to hold for the rotating Globe.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
http://www.lextalus.com/pdf/The%20Coriolis%20Effect.pdf

Page 5 and 6

The Coriolis Effect is explained.

But please take notice that figure 4 on page 6 does not take into account that the lines of gravity radiate from the center of the Earth, the lines grow closer together the closer one gets to the Earth’s center and further apart, the further away one travels.

So this would seem to compensate for the difference tangential velocity between the higher and lower altitudes.

The ground and objets on the ground, have less distance to travel ( and less velocity) than the object higher up in altitude (with the greater velocity).

Just like how the 3d sphere rotates. The nature of its shape means the tangential velocities across its curved and 3d surface, differ. Yet it rotates as one mass. This is the very means by which it is enabled to do so and retain its shape. .

This would seem to invalidate the conclusions of the mine shaft experiments which mythically show an eastward motion to a dropped object.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt2)
The science websites that discuss the Coriolis Effect use a misleading illustration of the world to show the projectile missing its target.

Yet the circumference velocity these ‘science guys’ point to is simply a result of the angle that gravity is pulling on the object. At the Equator it is at right angles to the latitude. That changes as one moves away from the Equator. Just like a clock face.

The ‘centrifugal force’ from the rotation of the world and ‘centripetal force’ from the effect of gravity are the two ‘forces’ we are dealing with.

In this model of the world, Atlas is someone who is about to engage in the sport of hammer throwing, but never lets the hammer fly free. Not the same as the Coriolis Effect.The latter requires the hammer to be let go.

If one goes into a 3d program and uses the animation and modeling tools, one will see how wrong the mainstream is about this one particular point.

The distances in two directions on the globe are clearly measurable. The motion of the globe and the projectile prove my point.

The cannon ball follows along with the cannon and strikes its target as if the world was still.

The cannonball simply follows the same line of longitude it originates from. The cannon is still where it is and so is the target. All on the same line.

I offer this as a more valid means of ‘proof’ than all the thought experiments and myths.

In this case, the computer can visualize the math for us and we can see for ourselves how the mainstream is wrong. This isn’t something abstract. Its basic motion in a 3d world.


Recent Comments by ProperGander

Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I believe the mainstream physics answer is the object possesses the inertia of the area it originated from.

A projectile shot north from the Equator possesses some 1000 mph velocity compared to say 900 mph some distance north.

Same reasoning holds true for mine shafts and bombs. The velocity higher up is greater than at below sea level, for example.

Not very satisfying when you think about it, but there it is.

They seem to forget about gravity and centripetal force law.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
Just to clarify. I’m posting what the mainstream ‘heliocentric’ theory is and how it works and why I think it can be proven to be flawed.

The atmosphere, in this theory, is supposed to possess the same inertia that causes the rotation of the globe.

Gravity, in this theory, is what keeps the gases from flying off the globe. Gravity is the centripetal force that produces the illusionary “centrifugal” force as a result of the effects of inertia. The latter effect would cause the gases of the atmosphere and all matter of the Earth, to fly off into space, were it not for ‘gravity’.

So in this theory, the gases move with the Earth according to centripetal /centrifugal motion. The mathematical equations show the square distance rule at work.The velocity at double the radius is not 2x but 1.4x as great.

The gases of the atmosphere are subject to the very same force of gravity an apple is.

Newton was incorrect when he applied fluid dynamics to the motions of the heavenly bodies and the presumptive motions of the Earth. The mistake is forgetting how centrifugal forces actually work.
The other mistake is ignoring demonstrable ballistics.

We cannot reproduce in a lab on Earth, the result of his famed cannonball thought experiment.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
I’d assume that in this model, the atmosphere would follow the laws of fluid dynamics and act like you suggest.

The basic point is that centripetal and centrifugal type experiments and math, clearly show that Newton was wrong in applying a model of fluid dynamics to the apparent motions of the stars and planets. His cannonball thought experiment is as nonsensical as the Einstein thought experiments.

The very model they use, precludes things like the Coriolis effect.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
GPS can be explained with simple electromagnetic type transmission towers set up at set distances along the surface of the Earth. Like say cell towers or the wireless base stations.

Wires can and are run across the oceans. The world might simply be wired like your home or office network.

Then there’s the idea of the ionosphere and using that to transmit radio waves. This idea goes back to the early days of radio.


Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1)
The gases would be subject to centripetal laws and would follow along in a squared root type proportion so that as the radius (distance from the surface of the Earth) doubles, the velocity along the arc is only 1.4x as great Yet the distance along this arc is doubled. So it would take a cloud in the upper atmosphere that much incrementally longer to reach the same point that the Earth’s surface rotates into. It would not follow exactly along like the rotating land mass does.

Brings up the whole reason for the Earth’s spin and how that and gravity work together.

The spin is due to cooling or something like that in the mainstream thinking as far as I can tell.

So if the spin was less, the centripetal force would pull us to the Earth more. That is, the effect of gravity would be increased. If the rotation of the Earth would increase, the pull of gravity would lessen. At least according to centrifugal/centripetal law.

Mass effects gravity. So mass effects the centripetal or real force. The spin or rotation is the result of inertia, so centrifugal is a false force of sorts. The curvature, the result of centripetal force pulling on a mass that would like to fly off into space in what would seem to be a straight line.

Centrifugal force is an illusion. Centripetal force is real and in this case it is gravity – the pull towards the center of Earth’s center.

This force is what defines the shape of the arc or orbit. That is, the closer to the Earth, the more this centripetal force is going to pull and the tighter the resulting arc of orbit becomes. Atomic clocks proving Einstein right, show the different potential of the gravity field at different heights.

This means more energy is required to make the same turn at the same velocity. The larger the radius, the less energy required to make the same turn. And if there is the lag due to centripetal force, and the velocity does not double like the distance, then would we not assume the higher object would lag the object on Earth’s surface and not lead like Newton and Galileo claim?

And if the force of gravity is such that the atmosphere can cover that distance in the same time as the Earth’s surface, then we’d expect a bomb to fall exactly where it would as if the Earth was unmoving (sans atmosphere). As the centripetal force tightens the arc and the apparent velocity of our object will be adjusted accordingly.

The same energy, in this model, is a spin at the Poles and a tangential velocity at the circumference. It is the combination of inertia (IE the cooling of the mass) and the effect of the mass curving ‘space time’ that gives the globe its motion and shape.


Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.