# Geocentrism Continued

All4Lifetoo proposes:

The accepted sidereal period of the Moon around the Earth is 27.32 days and the accepted period of the Moon’s rotation is 27.32 days, thus causing the Moon to always present the same face or view toward the Earth. Under your theory the sedereal period and the rotation of the Moon would be one day to maintain the same appearance.

Imagine for a moment a satellite in a circular orbit. The satellite has no rotation. An observer on the satellite looking at the center focus of the orbit would be required to rotate on the satellite at a rate equal to the satellites orbital period in order to always face the focus of the orbit. If the satellite orbited the focus once in 24 hours the observer would be required to make one rotation on the satellite in 24 hours in order to always face the orbit’s focus. This rate of rotation of the observer could be measured.

NASA could put a satellite into the same orbit as that of the Moon…The satellite would have no rotation of it’s own. It would maintain a plane of reference in space that would be gryoscopically controlled. It would not be allowed to maintain it’s plane by reference to the stars because this would transfer your theorical rotation of the universe to the satellite. Mounted on the satellite is an instrument that locks itself onto the Moon and tracks the Moon. As the satellite orbits the Earth it is necessary for the tracking device to rotate on the satellite to track the Moon in the same manner as the observer on the non-rotating satellite had to rotate to face the focus of the orbit. The rate of this rotation would be measured. If it takes one day to rotate 360 degrees then you are correct. The Moon orbits the Earth in 24 hours. If it takes 27.32 days then you are incorrect. The Moon orbits the Earth in one month and a rotating Earth is neccessary to produce the 24 hour period of the Moon. Such instrumentation capable of this experiment already exist because it is used on the M1 tank to lock targets while the body of the tank moves around under the gun turret.

If there is a flaw in my theory of how the period of the Moon’s orbit might be directly measured in this manner, I trust someone will point it out to me. Perhaps hecd2 could comment on my purposed method.

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 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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]On the other hand, this is not an issue for your proposed experiment.[/size]
[size=2][/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][/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][/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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Mark Wyatt
[/size]

All4Lifetoo proposes:

Originally Posted by wanerious
…Were the Earth stationary, then the Moon would need to orbit the Earth with a period close to 24 hours. Since it always keeps the same face towards us, it would also need to spin on its own axis every 24 hours. Setting up a Foucault pendulum on the Moon ought to settle the issue.

Markjwyatt: A Foucalt Pendulum opn the earth is reacting to either the rotation of the earth or the rotation of the universe, we cannot distingiush. If the moon were embedded in the aether, it would not be rotating on its axis, rather it is fixed on its axis, and following the universal rotation., much like a ball on a string tied to a rotating shaft. I am not sure what a Foucalt Pendulum would do on the moon. It should not detect the rotation of the moon, but may be effected by gravitational attraction to the earth. Also, the gyroscopic precession of the universe around the earth could effect it. I am not sure if we are not in the same situation on the moon as on earth- where we cannot distinguish.

All4lifetoo: There is one sure way to find out what the pendulum will do on the Moon. That is to put one there and test it. We can evaluate the results after we get them.

[quote=Markjwyatt]All4Lifetoo proposes:

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][/size]
[size=2]On the other hand, this is not an issue for your proposed experiment.[/size]
[size=2][/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][/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][/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]
[size=2][/size]
[size=2]Mark Wyatt[/size]

[/quote]

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.

To Phil Vaz:

It will land 5" to the east due to:

1. The earth’s rotation;
2. OR the universes;

A. Mach’s principle;
B. Einstein’s Equivalence principle;
C. GR;
D. The Lense-Thirring Effect;

Mark Wyatt

All4Lifetoo says:

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.

The diffeence here is the following:

The moon is embedded in the aether;

The aether is rotating around the earth;

The satellite is also in the aether; though not quite embedded, because it is not massive. On the other hand, as long as it does not resist the aether, it will more or less follow its rotation;

The moon and satellite are both in a rotating aether reference frame. They are stationary to each other relative to the reference frame. To use an insufficient analogy, they are both cast into a crystalline (read optically clear and rigid) sphere. The sphere is rotating on the earth’s axis. The moon and satellite do not know they are in the crystalline sphere. An observer on the satellite sees a stationary moon and an apparent rotating earth (on its axis). An observer on the moon sees a stationary satellite and an apparent rotating earth (on its axis). An observer on the earth sees a satellite and moon moving together and moving across the heavens from east to west at a fixed angular velocity.

The satellite does not rotate. The moon does not rotate. They both orbit the earth.

Pictures and animation would help (not of the sarcastic type offered by Mr. Vaz).

Mark Wyatt

All4Lifetoo says:

There is one sure way to find out what the pendulum will do on the Moon. That is to put one there and test it. We can evaluate the results after we get them.

I am not against that, but would prefer to see the experiment evaluated first, mathematically.

I think, based on Dr. Bennett’s article, there may be a way to use artificial satellites to probe the question, as you had suggested.

Mark Wyatt

**Notice:

This thread is now closed. Thanks to all who participated in the discussion.**

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.