"Do you have any argument other than the ad hominem above?"
Yes, as stated elsewhere:
I'm afraid there is, contrary to Sungenis' claims, no physics supporting geocentrism.
Even his idiotic "center of mass argument" is a demonstrable load of crap. The universe just doesn't act like it has any center of mass.
As Alex MacAndrew stated:
"Let us ignore, just for the moment, the fact that the universe is unlikely to be a sphere or any other shape with a spatial boundary, and grant for the sake of argument, over the next few paragraphs, the idea that the universe is spatially finite, flat, Euclidean and spherical with a spatial boundary (i.e., a ball) and therefore in possession of a definable and unique centre of mass.
Let’s also note that Sungenis is attempting a classical (Newtonian) analysis. Then “those stars” will revolve around the Earth only if they are gravitationally bound and the universe as a whole has non-zero angular momentum. Moreover they should revolve in a way that is predictable by the laws of celestial mechanics.
What do we observe?
In the first place, we see that the universe as a whole is not gravitationally bound (the expansion of the universe is accelerating and parts of the universe are moving apart at greater than escape velocity which means they are not gravitationally bound); furthermore we do not measure a non-zero angular momentum for the universe (i.e. it does not measurably rotate) 16; and finally the motion of the galaxies and galaxy clusters looks nothing like they would look if the universe were a gravitationally bound set of free falling bodies revolving around a centre of mass, in which the angular velocity of galaxies should decrease as a function of distance from the centre of mass."
So, it just doesn't even act like it has a center of mass in the first place. But it gets better. Even if it did, and even if the Earth at any point occupied it, it is physically impossible for the Earth to remain at rest at that spot.
Sungenis confuses the center of mass with a point of zero gravity. However, since the universe beyond Earth is nowhere near symmetrical (we have most of the mass of the solar system parked next door to us, in the form of the sun), this isn't the case. Even if it was symmetrical, that still wouldn't matter.
To quote MacAndrew again:
"Sungenis is conflating the centre of mass with a point where the gravitational field is zero. A body at the centre of mass is still subject to the gravitational fields of other bodies – and in general, contrary to Sungenis’s claim, the gravitational field is not zero at the centre of mass....
And the Earth is not near to being in a gravitationally symmetric situation – it is not, even in Sungenis’s “ball universe” model, positioned in the centre of a ball of uniform density and gravitational attraction, because it is relatively close to a massive body (the Sun) with the next equivalently massive body, Proxima Centauri, ~270,000 times further away – and, remember, gravitational field goes as the inverse square of the distance. The Earth is primarily subject to the relatively enormous gravitational field of the Sun; secondarily to the gravitational field of other solar bodies which are about 1,000 (for the moon) – ~30,000 (for Venus and Jupiter) times less than the Sun; and then to the gravity of the entire Milky Way galaxy of a trillion stars which, in spite of its immense mass and because of its vast distance from the Earth, is 31 million times less than that of the Sun....
All of these bodies cause some acceleration of the Earth – in the case of the Sun, its gravity results in the acceleration of the Earth which keeps the Earth in orbit around it; the moon’s gravity causes an acceleration of the Earth that results in a monthly perturbation or wobble on the Earth’s annual orbit (the gravity of the other planets cause further perturbations). The acceleration due to the gravitational field of the Milky Way explains the orbit of the Earth, Sun and other planets of the solar system round the galaxy at a radius of 25,900 light years) and so on. The gravitational fields (and Earth’s resulting accelerations) of the rest of the galaxy are very small compared to the Sun’s field, but are sufficient to explain the orbit of the solar system around the galaxy because of the very large period of the solar system’s galactic motion....
Together with the Sun’s field, the accelerations caused by these bodies, all in constant motion, result in time - changing velocities so that the Earth cannot be stably at rest in an inertial frame. A finite acceleration, which the earth must have because it is in a non-zero gravitational field, is the same as a time-varying velocity – that’s the definition of acceleration – and if a velocity is time-varying it cannot be zero indefinitely, even if it is zero for a moment. Even if at one instant in time the Earth just happens to coincide with the centre of mass, it cannot remain so.
So. Whoops. Not only does the universe not act like it has Sungenis' magical center of mass - but the Earth couldn't remain occupy it indefinitely, even if it did.
And don't get me started on Sungeni's ridiculous "oscilliation" idea - needless to say he utterly fails at simple geometry. He states that the universe oscillates in a 74 million mile arc, but fails to realise that if that were the case, everything that lies on a plane with the Sun and further away from Earth than it from our perspective, would have to travel further than 74 million miles, in order to remain on the same plane as the sun.
The greatest failing though, is that it means absolutely nothing, geometrically, to talk of "oscillating" a sphere in an arc defined by a linear distance - you would talk in ANGLES, not lengths. Sungenis doesn't get this, because he's a mathematically illiterate moron.
My favourite thing about Sungenis is when he openly contradicts himself and admits the universe is not geocentric - such as when he gets around the comet problem by stating that the comet crosses the EARTH'S PATH.
Hmmmm. Do tell me how a stationary object can be said to have a "path"....
The geocentric camp has ZERO physics. You don't have gravity, we've already gone through that. Classical Newtonian physics and General Relativity is against you.
And if you want to invoke some magical "Aether", you have to account for the fact that every experiment disproves it's existence - the Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale-Peterson and Airy's telescope experiments, taken together, cannot be explained with an Aether. In order to invoke it for the Michelson-Gale-Peterson experiment, you have to discount the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, because the type of Aether they support is completely different.
Geocentrifrauds are hilarious when they try to rewrite scientific history.
And even if we just accept the Aether, despite there being no evidence for its existence and everything pointing against it - you still need to supply the physical mechanism/force that explains the motions of the bodies as they move through it. Yet another important part of the physics that is completely missing from this childish conjecture.
reply
share