Sungenis' geocentric theory may be disproved shortly

Is the Earth in a Vortex of Space-Time?

NASA has announced that “A NASA/Stanford physics experiment called Gravity Probe B (GP-B) recently finished a year of gathering science data in Earth orbit. The results, which will take another year to analyze, should reveal the shape of space-time around Earth–and, possibly, the vortex.” More from the article: “If Earth were stationary, that would be the end of the story. But Earth is not stationary. Our planet spins, and the spin should twist the dimple, slightly, pulling it around into a 4-dimensional swirl. This is what GP-B went to space to check.”

I should note that I’m not gunning for this study to turn up definitive proof that Sungenis is wrong, as I’m not sure what it would mean for pundits of the Hoyle-Narlikar solution of the Einstein metric tensor, which is what I now personally lean towards as opposed to canonical General Relativity (it might not have any consequences in that regard).

On the other hand, if this study does show that Earth is in a space-time vortex, will Sungenis award the promised $1000 cash prize to NASA???*

[quote=Truth_Is_Good]Is the Earth in a Vortex of Space-Time?

On the other hand, if the vortex effects are not detected, it may send theorists scrambling to understand the larger consequences in terms of the validity of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.

It could turn out to be this generation’s Michelson-Morley Experiment.

I should have done more research . . . but I’m willing to admit when I’m mistaken! :smiley:

The more general name for this vortex effect in GR is called “frame dragging,” and Sungenis is already aware of it and his shown how his ideas can still be a valid interpretation of the observations if in fact frame dragging is detected by this experiment.

On the other hand, there will still be quite a stir in the scientific community if it’s not detected at all – i.e. perhaps Hoyle-Narlikar is the way to go and canonical GR is wrong, or perhaps some of the assumptions behind GR (whatever interpretation you favor) and GR itself will have to be dropped altogether.

It’s already been done:

Ciufolini & Pavlis ‘A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense–Thirring effect’ Nature 431, 958–960 (2004), with this abstract:

‘An important early prediction of Einstein’s general relativity was the advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, whose measurement provided one of the classical tests of Einstein’s theory. The advance of the orbital point-of-closest-approach also applies to a binary pulsar system and to an Earth-orbiting satellite. General relativity also predicts that the rotation of a body like Earth will drag the local inertial frames of reference around it, which will affect the orbit of a satellite. This Lense–Thirring effect has hitherto not been detected with high accuracy, but its detection with an error of about 1 per cent is the main goal of Gravity Probe B—an ongoing space mission using orbiting gyroscopes. Here we report a measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect on two Earth satellites: it is 99+/-5 per cent of the value predicted by general relativity’


If the entire universe is revolving around a fixed earth, we would also see a vortex. What the article is impying is if the earth is stationary in a stationary universe, there would be no vortex. But a stationary earth and rotating universe will have the same relative motion as rotating earth in a stationary universe (talking about specifically the 24 hr. rotation).

Also, “frame dragging” is part of what Thirring discovered in his model of a rotating shell, where he saw Corliolis and other “inertial” like forces in the center (analogous to a rotating universe).

Unless this experiment actually invalidates general relativity, it cannot invalidate the geocentric perspective. Whatever phenomenon is observed must be describable from a fixed earth perspective, else general relativity becomes disproven. If general relativity is disproven, then we fall back on the aether drift experiments and others of similar nature, and geocentrism still remains a possibility.


[quote=hecd2]It’s already been done: Ciufolini & Pavlis ‘A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense–Thirring effect’ Nature 431, 958–960 (2004), with this abstract:

Fascinating. Something else that is fascinating . . .

A theorist named Hans Montanus has shown that you can contsruct a physical theory that makes the same predictions as GR but in an absolute Euclidean space-time:

Hans Montanus. General Relativity in an Absolute Euclidean Space-Time. Physics Essays, vol. 8, 1995. Abstract is as follows:

We will consider two phenomena well known from the general theory of relativity in an absolute Euclidean spacetime. From the mathematical point of view a Euclidean spacetime can be obtained from a Minkowski spacetime by means of a simple rearrangement procedure. We will make use of this procedure to derive the Euclidean spacetime analog of the Schwarzschild metric. From this metric, or rather from its corresponding Lagrangian, we will derive the expressions for the deflection of light and the precession of perihelia of planets in an absolute Eucliean spacetime. The results are striking. That is, we arrive at the same expressions as found in the general theory of relativity. The prediction of these values has always been regarded as a success of the general theory of relativity. Our results, however, show that the agreement between observed and the predicted values also supports the absolute Euclidean spacetime theory.

Hans Montanus. Arguments Against the General Theory of Relativity and For a Flat Altemative. Physics Essays, vol. 10, 1997. Abstract is as follows:

In this paper we will offer decisive arguments against the general theory of relativity. We will also offer an alternative model for gravitation; that is, we will construct the appropriate Lagrangian for the description of gravitational dynamics in an absolute Euclidean space-time. This Lagrangian leads to the correct predictions for the gravitational time dilation, the gravitational redshift, the deflection of light, and the precession of the perihelia of planets. In this alternative model for gravitation we do not need the concept of a curved space-time. Our flat, ablsolute, and Euclidean alternative excludes the possibility of black holes, Einstein-Rosen bridges, and other exotic consequences of the theory of relativity.

It goes without saying that his alternative approach wouldn’t sit well with the Standard Model folks. I mean whoah!

I don’t know how this would or does fit together with the Hoyle-Narlikar solution of the Einstein metric tensor, which also results in a theory with an absolute Euclidean space-time, wherein the mass of fundamental particles varies with their age. Maybe the two theories are complimentary.

In any case, watch out Standard Model! Or perhaps not. We’ll just have to wait and see . . .

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