Again, I do not believe the moon rotates on its axis. I think you are on the right path to consider using artificial sateelites to set up a situation where the two views can be contrasted. See Dr. Bennets articls ([size=2]Genesis, Galileo, and the[/size] Crisis of Faith**)** on Robert Sungenis’ website (www.catholicintl.com). He has modelled the interaction of sun, moon, and a third object (sun, sattelite).
[size=2]On the other hand, this is not an issue for your proposed experiment.[/size]
[size=2]Here is what I would predict for your experiment. You are following the moon around the earth and tracking it (say its center). In the Geocentric case, the satellite is really standing stationary in the aether. The aether will rotate around earth’s axis in 24 hours. The satellite will not rotate due to this motion. The universe will also precess, but since the satellite is in the precessing aether, it will still remain staionary and will not rotate. No rotation will be detected. From a ground station (on earth), the satellite will appear to move east ot west every 24 hours. The satellite will appear to have moon like phases corresponding to the lunar sidereal period.[/size]
[size=2]In the heliocentric case, the satellite will follow the moon. Since it is following the moon, it will require no rotation to track it. From a ground station (on earth), the satellite will appear to move east ot west every 24 hours. The sidereal period will appear to be 27.32 days. The satellite will appear to have moon like phases corresponding to the lunar sidereal period.[/size]
[size=2]Again, the situations appear indistinguishable. I did this exercise in my head with both models in mind (writing as I pictured it). If I erred, I am open to correction. Again, see Robert Bennet’s article. I think this line of reasoning is interesting. It depends on how true GR is. If it is the absolute truth, then I doubt we will be able to distinguish. If it contains holes (as I suspect), then there will be experiments (i.e., the Sagnac effect) which may allow distinguishing between the systems (acentic, heliocentric, Geocentric).[/size]
Why would the satellite in space operate different that an ICBM in space? An ICBM has a three gryoscope stablized inertia measurement platform that remains fixed in attitude in space while the missle yaws, pitches, and rotates around it. The measurement of that movement around the stable IMU platform gives rise to navigation information.
A gryoscopic stablized satellite would also maintain its attitude in space. An object that has a stable attitude and is following another object in an orbit must necessarily move its tracking instrument to maintain its sight of the target (or, in the case of a rotating aether, not move its tracking instrument). Either way, the rate of change of the tracking instrument can be used to test both theories.
One satellite following another in orbit is dissimilar to one car following another around a race track. No matter what the speed of the cars, the following car always points at or toward the followed car and there is no change in observational azimuth by the following car (as long as the speeds are matched). The following satellite however does not point at the followed satellite, but points to an imaginary reference point established by the gryoscope. There is a change in observational azimuth to the followed satellite by the following satellite and the rate of change is related to the orbital speed of the satellites. If the rate of change is zero then the satellites are stationary in a rotating aether. If the change is 27.32 days for 360 degrees then the Moon is orbiting the Earth in 27.32 days. If the change is 24 hours for 360 degrees then the Moon is orbiting the Earth in 24 hours.