Geocentricity 101, Part I

Geocentricity 101, Part I, Basic Concepts

Mark Wyatt
August 1st, 2005
Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly
based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also,
the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der
Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in
various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on
the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr.
Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005),
which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.
--------------------------------------------------------There are many possible explanations for explaining the cosmos we observe.
Geocentricity is one of the many explanations.
If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean
relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the
cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.
This is basically stating that a coordinate transformation can be made from some to
any other coordinate system (say x, y, and z axis) with its origin placed arbitrarily in
space. If this coordinate transformation is done correctly, then the relative motions of
the observed objects in the heavens will be consistent with the relative motions from
any other correctly applied coordinate system at a different location. This is basic
vector mathematics and is not controversial. To state it more simply if one observes
the relative motions of objects in the heavens (let's say we pick earth, our sun, and say
one distant galaxy) from a spot on the surface of the moon, one can consider this the
origin of a coordinate system (say CS1). If one then observes the motions of the same
objects from a location on Mar's surface, this represents a coordinate system
transformation to a new coordinate system (Say CS2). Since we can think of ourselves
as sitting at the origin of whatever coordinate system we choose, this point becomes
fixed in space, and the universe appears to revolve around us at this point. If one
plotted the relative motions from CS1 and CS2 relative to their respective origins, the
paths of the observed objects would seem very different. In fact though, they would
be consistent. If one transformed a coordinate system from CS1 to a thrid coordinate
system (CS3, say on the surface of Alpha Centuri), and one did the same coordinate
transformation from CS2 to CS3, the resulting paths of objects realtive to the origin of
CS3 should be identical.
Let's take an example. Let's start at CS1, viewing the path of the earth. Assuming we
pick a location on the face of the moon with view to earth, we would see the earth
rotating in place on about a 23.12 hour period (this accounts for a 24 hour rotation +
the 27.3 day period of the moon orbiting the earth). Ignoring any ellipticity in the
moons orbit, basically the earth appears not to be translating, but only rotating. The
sun would have more complicated motion. It would appear to have a 27.3 day cycle
(the lunar orbital period), and would spend much of the time eclipsed by the earth, or

behind us. The distant objects would rotate on 27.3 day periods, apparently on a
sphere.
Now let's transform to CS2, the surface of Mars. To be sure we can always see the
earth. let's fix CS2 on Mar's North pole, and allow Mars to rotate on our z-axis (a
rotating Mars reference frame, z-axis pointing north). In some cases, the earth will
move behind us, but we can look over our shoulders at it. The earth will appear to
have a bizzare motion, sometimes moving towards us, sometimes moving away. The
path will be curved, often making loops. Pretty similar to watching Mars from earth.
Now if we transformed from CS1 to CS3 (sitting out in space say on one of Alpha
Centuri's poles, with the star permitted to rotate on its axis if it wants to) we would
see the moon travelling around the earth, the earth apparently travelling around the
sun, etc., all apparently in fixed space. Now keep in mind that if the universe was
rotating with Alpha Centuri in it, we just stoppped the rotation by fixing our
coordinate system on Alpha Centuri. If we transform from CS2 to CS3, we get the
same result. This is what is meant by the observed motions are consistent.
In the case of a geocentric model, we will place earth at the center of the universe, and
fix it (allow no rotation or translation). The universe will revolve around the earth. In
a geocentric model, we are stating that this is the true reality of the universe, and we
want to go beyond the fact that we can perform a coordinate transformation to achieve
this model. There is no controversy regarding the observations. All the observations
man has collected up to the space age have been a fixed earth model. Ptolemy's model
of the universe had high observational accuracy, and was based on fixed earth
observations. Ptolemy's observations are still consistent with space based observations
(coordinate transformation). Ptolemy's model was transformable to different locations
on the fixed earth. Finding the physics to describe why the paths were as they were in
Ptolemy's model is difficult.
Corpenicus created a heliocentric model using the same basic observations of
Ptolemy. In his model, the sun was the center of the universe. As in Ptolemy's model,
the planets had circular orbits, but in this case around the sun. Corpenicus, just like
Ptolemy had to add epicycles to match the model to observations. In order to gain the
same accuracy as Ptolemy's model, Corpencius required 48 epicycles to Ptolemy's 40.
An example of an epicycle is illustrated here for a Ptolemaic system (epicycle).
Tycho Brahe proposed the Tychonic geocentric model. In his original model, the sun
and stars revolve around the earth every 24 hours. The planets orbit the sun with
circular orbits. The Tychonian system is as accurate as the Corpenican, except it does
not predict parallax.
In modern geocentric theories, the modern-Tychonian or neo-Tychonian model are
used. The modern-Tychonian system is the same as the original, except the planets
orbit the sun with elliptical orbits. In the neo-Tychonian system the further extension
of the modern-Tychonian that the stars are centered on the sun, is added. The neoTychonian system directly predicts parallax. Parallax can also be created in the
modern-Tychonian system by providing for a precession of the universe. The results
of either modification are essentially the same.

No one argues that from an observational perspective all these systems are equivalent.
It is simply a matter of relative motion. The observed motions in the various models
are consistent between models to some degree o accuracy. Clearly there are geocentric
(i.e. modern-Tychonic type), heliocentric (i.e., Keplerian type), and acentric (i.e.,
Kepler like with no center) which can match all known observations, including
parallax, abberation, motion of the planets, etc. According to modern physics, the
systems are equivalent, also. This led Sir Fred Hoyle (Nicholas Corpenicus, 1973) to
state:
"The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a
mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any
two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate
transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view ... . Today we
cannot say that the Copernican theory is right and the Ptolemaic theory wrong in
any meaningful physical sense."
Similarly, Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover
Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to
show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's
field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He
calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside
the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually
attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Einstein himself also says:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy
and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal
justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun
moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions
concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212
(p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"
These quotes do not explain the physics, but state that according to Einstein's General
Rrelativity, the systems must be equivalent (else General Relativity is wrong!)
Another way of stating this is to say that there are no preferred reference frames in the
universe. I.e., one should be able to formulate the forces and motions of the universe
consistently from any reference frame in the universe, treating that reference frame as
fixed.

Geocentrism 101, Part II

Geocentricity 101, Part II Basic Physics
Mark Wyatt
August 3rd, 2005
Acknowledgements: The material presented here is a summary of research firstly
based on the dialogues of Robert Sungenis, as well as correspondence with him. Also,
the works of other geocentric researchers (esp. Gerardus Buow, Walter Van Der
Kamp) were consulted. The details were discussed, debated, etc. with scientists in
various forums. Additional research was carried out within scientific literature and on
the internet to better understand the underlying physics. Robert Sungenis and Dr.
Robert Bennett are writing the book, "Galileo was Wrong", due out this year (2005),
which should provide far greater detail than this introduction.
---------------------------------------------------------Review of Part I
In part I, we discussed the basic principles of geocentrism. We discussed coordinate
systems, and briefly touched upon relative motions within the cosmos. Part I basically
stated that one could perform a coordinate transformation to any point in space and as
long as one had a map of relative motions and observations of heavenly bodies from
the originating coordinate system, one could map out what those motions and
observations would appear to be in a new coordinate system. For this reason one
could simulate what the motions of the solar system looked like from the sun's
perspective (this is called heliocentrism). One could also map out what those motions
looked like from the earth (i.e., geocentrism). Of course one could choose Mars, a
specific asteoid, etc. It was also pointed out that all the observations made by man up
to the space age were basically equivalent to earth based observations. This means
that the motions of the planets, moon(s), asteroids, comets were geocentric
observations. This means that the phases of Jupiter's moons, phases of Venus,
parallax, abberation, etc. were geocentric observations. It is in fact impossible to
differentiate between geocentrism and any other proposed center (i.e, heliocentrism,
acentrism) based on observations. George Ellis, a cosmologist in Cape Town, South
Africa made this point in a Scientific American article:
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the
observations,...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe
with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. Ellis has
published a paper on this. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my
view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is
the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of
cosmology tries to hide that..
W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol.
273, No.4, p. 55.
Finally, it was proposed that the real issue for geocentrists (and heliocentrists and
acentrists, etc.) is to propose a physical model that accounts for the observations. It

was put forth that Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred
reference frames in the universe. In other words, one can choose any point in space
and consistently describe not only the motions and observations, but the actual forces
in the universe from the chosen point. A series of quotations from Einstein and other
scientists to this effect were presented in relation to geocentrism. It was not claimed
that this proves geocentrism.
---------------------------------------------------------First let us discuss briefly physical theories. Many physical theories are approximate
and empirical. An example is Newtonian mechanics, especially Newtonian
gravitation. With the example of gravitation in mind, it can be stated that Newtonian
theory has no physical explanation for gravity. Yet it does tend to work, at least for
most cases we have yet enountered . An example of a more descriptive physical
theory for gravitation is Le Sage's corpuscular theories (and related theories, i.e.,
graviton theories, etc.) . While Newton relates the gravitational attraction of two
objects to the masses and the inverse square of the distances, Le Sagean theory relates
the attraction to a sea of proposed corpuscles moving at very high velocites through
space. The corpuscles impinge upon objects equally on all sides, except where a
second object blocks the first. Where the objects interfere, there is less corpuscular
"pressure", thus the objects move towards one another. Interestingly, within
reasonable limits, the equations for Le Sagean gravitation reduce to Newton's
equations for gravity. I will call the less descriptive type of theory "empirical" and the
more descriptive theories "mechanistic".
Probably the most used theory in general cosmology today is Einstein's General
Relativty (GR). Though it is considered a very powerful theory, it is in fact empirical,
especially in its treatment of gravity. GR's treatment of gravity can be viewed as
geometric. In the geometric interpretation, gravity is imagined to be a distortion of an
underlying grid. Space is represented as distorted by massive objects. The idea is that
as other objects approach, they will "roll down the distortion". Of course there is still
a force implied, otherwise why would an object feel the need to "roll down"? So this
is just a way of representing gravity. Ultimately, in fairly static space-time (i.e., such
as our solar system represented as heliocentric), the gravity in Einstein's General
relativity will reduce to Newtonian gravity (much like in the case of Le Sage's
gravity). Empirical theories are probably the most used today, because it is not
necassary to elucidate all the details (of gravity for instance). As long as the theory is
valid, and for practical problems this is acceptable.
Let us start by viewing geocentrism from the perspective of GR. After a general
description within GR, we can see what explanations have been proposed for rotating
universes. Then we can briefly discuss some more mechanistic possibilities.
One may ask 'if no one believes in geocentrism, why would they model a rotating
universe with earth at the center?'. Well first some researchers may be open to
geocentrism. Secondly, researchers want to validate the principles of GR. One of the
principles is that there are "no preferred reference frames" in the universe. This means
that we can pick any center, make a coordinate transformation to that center and
describe the universe from that point. It means that the interactions of all the
gravitational attractions and other forces in the universe will balance in such a way
that the center we picked will physically act as the center. This means that if we pick a
fixed earth (non-rotating, non-translating) then all the forces in the universe will act in

such a way that when we solve the Einsteinian equations, we will find that there will
be a balance of forces in the universe that will include the features of:
1. A rotating universe
2. An earth (or other chosen center) fixed in the center
3. Forces opposing the rotation of the center.
4. All observations in the universe will be consistent with observations from solutions
at a different center.
I.e., if we chose earth as center, and we currently believe the earth is rotating, and we
are able to describe the motions of geosynchronous satellites from the rotating earth
perspective (or say from a fixed sun perspective), and we reformulated Einstein's
equations on a fixed earth, there must exist analgous forces causing the same
observations of geosynchronous satellites. If not, then GR is incorrect. This is one
reason why relativists create models of rotating universes on a fixed earth. They want
to demonstrate that GR produces forces analogous to what we observe in our
presumed rotating earth universe. This principle is called the "strong" principle of
relativity. Neither Newtonian theory nor Einstein's Special Relativity have the strong
principle.
Let's start with a related example. Gron and Erikson gave an example of an observer
seeing the earth from the surface of the moon. Now from this location, the earth
appears to be rotating below the moon. It is just hanging in space and turning. Why
does the moon not fall to the earth? They explain that the reason is because we had
neglected to include the rest of the universe in the picture! They, and GR, are
proposing the universe is Machian (after Ernst Mach of Mach Number fame). Mach
proposed that every object in the universe is attracted to every other object. He
proposed that inertia is due to resistance of movement of an object to all the other
objects in the universe. Like Leibniz, he proposed that space was really not
something, but rather just a relationship between objects in the universe.
But what is the relationship between the rest of the objects in the universe and our
coordinate system (i.e., fixed moon)? Well the rest of the universe (cosmic mass) is
rotating around this coordinate system (and thus around the earth and moon).
Somehow this rotating universe is creating forces which [from our coordinate
system's perspective] keep the earth from falling to the moon. Gron and Erikson
(General Relativity and Gravitation) explain it in this quote:
"...we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon,
both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einsteins field
equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the
Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth,
which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would
imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid.
This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass
rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves
Einsteins field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces
the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field
in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the

Earth."
But, one objects, we know why the moon does not fall to the earth. It is because the
moon is orbiting the earth and rotating... This is true from the perspective of a
coordinate system fixed say on the north pole of the earth and allowing the earth to
rotate around it. In this case the cosmic masses are not rotating, and their influence is
less (but not zero, inertia still exists). This is the realm of Newtonian mechanics and
Special relativity. This is the key to GR- it is Machian. One can pick any center and
reformulate the entire universe from the perspective of this center and consistently
describe the universe. In fact per GR there is no reality beyond a perspective. This is a
philosophical position. Actually doing this (modelling the entire universe) is difficult,
but this is the principle that GR is built upon. If it turned out that there actually were a
center to the universe, then it is still possible that the GR solution to this center's
perspective is valid. All other solutions (i.e., for other centers) would be considered
hypothetical ones considering the other centers as candidate centers. If we found a
portal to a known fixed reference outside the universe, and knew we could spend a
limited amount of time there (I.e., if God granted us this), our best bet would be to
solve Einstein's GR equations for a number of candidate centers. Then we could go to
this observation post, and see which one most accurately describes the observed
universe. Of course we cannot do this.
Let us look at an example dealing specifically with the earth. Rosser treats an
observer (O') on earth with earth as the center (earth functions as a "roundabout"), and
describes why there is no issue with the stars moving greater than the speed of light.
He then points out that when the rotating roundabout (i.e., the rotating earth) is treated
as being at rest (ie., fixed earth, also the "stationary roundabout"), the forces from the
rotating cosmic masses become huge, and create the forces (which for instance keep
geosynchronous satellites apparently hovering above the fixed earth) which hold the
earth fixed against a rotating universe.
"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a
velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars
would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x
10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to
be a contradictionthat the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the
speed of light]. However, the restriction u [less than] c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted
to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to
choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no
gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal
to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the
lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a
gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material
bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the
gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the
centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is
consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to
exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." (An Introduction to the Theory of
Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)
As an aside, I want to briefly touch on the issue of fixed light speed (3X10^8 m/s, or

300,000,000 m/s). GR does not have a specific limitation on the speed of light.
Special Relativity states it is fixed everywhere. GR does reduce to special relativity in
regions of space-time which are flat (i.e., no gravity). In these instances GR may have
a limitation on speed. The reason GR cannot have a general limitation on the speed of
light is illustrated in this amusing example:
(Math Pages)
"The moon revolves round my head faster than light!
Stand up in a clear space and spin round. It is not too difficult to turn at one
revolution each two seconds. Suppose the moon is on the horizon. How fast is it
spinning round your head? It is about 385,000 km away so the answer is 1.21 million
km/s, which is more than four times the speed of light! It sounds ridiculous to say that
the moon is going round your head when really it is you who is turning, but according
to general relativity all co-ordinate systems are equally valid including revolving
ones. So isn't the moon going faster than the speed of light? This is quite difficult to
account for.
What it comes down to, is the fact that velocities in different places cannot be directly
compared in general relativity. Notice that the moon is not overtaking the light in its
own locality. The velocity of the moon can only be compared to the velocity relative to
other objects in its own local inertial frame. Indeed, the concept of velocity is not a
very useful one in general relativity and this makes it difficult to define what "faster
than light" means. Even the statement that "the speed of light is constant" is open to
interpretation in general relativity. Einstein himself in his book "Relativity: the
special and the general theory" said that the statement cannot claim unlimited
validity (pg 76). When there is no absolute definition of time and distance it is not so
clear how speeds should be determined.
Nevertheless, the modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in
general relativity and this statement is a tautology given that standard units of
distance and time are related by the speed of light. The moon is given to be moving
slower than light because it remains within the future light cone propagating from its
position at any instant."
Now, we have demonstrated that GR can be used to make a reasonable case for a
fixed earth at the center of a rotating universe. One may ask, 'what are the
mechanisms that actually allow this to occur'? Misner, Wheeler and Thorne in
Gravitation (pp. 1117-1119) modeled the general case of gyroscopic motion with
gravitation in the post-Newtonian limit (which can be interpreted as a rotating
universe as having gyroscopic stability). They conclude that the gyroscope (rotating
universe) maintains the center of mass (the earth in geocentrism) from rotating or
translating. This is much like a top. If a top is disturbed forces react to the disturbance
to maintain the position of the center of mass. In the case of a geocentric universe, the
universe will react to maintain its center. This means the entire power of the universe
will be used to maintain earth at its center.
Many people ask 'what constitutes the earth'? Is it just the surface? Is it the solid ball?
Does it include the atmosphere? Really the question is no different in geocentrism

then it is in heliocentrism or acentrism. It really depends on what we are looking at. In

terms of gyroscopic stabilization, the universe will try and stabilize its center. If the
earth is at center, it will be stabilized. Though the center of mass is mathematically a
point, the action of the entire universe will work to maintain this point stable (just like
a top will wobble or precess against a disturbance). One can imagine various
mechanisms which could act to stabilize the earth. If there is a huge volcanic eruption,
and 0.001% of earth's mass is blown into the atmosphere and lands on the other side
of the earth, how much would the universe have to rearrange itself to accomodate
this? Undetectably.
Let us finish up by looking at more mechanistic explanations. These are more
speculative, but interesting to consider. Usually, geocentrists (much like quantam
mechanicists today) bring back the possibility of an aether to explain a geocentric
universe. Many people believe aether was disproven, but, just like geocentrism, this is
not true. As I have stated, in quantam mechanics, the aether is being brought back by
many researchers. Also, the concept of dark matter and dark energy are an aether
under different names. Note that though GR does not posit aether, and Einstein
rejected it, this does not mean aether is incompatible with GR. Many researchers into
Le Sagean gravity and graviton type models have shown that some relativistic effects
(such as frame dragging) can be explained with aether type theories. See for instance
the book Pushing Gravity, edited by Edward R. Matthews. Let us leave this at this.
The proposed substance of the aether is the Planck particle. This is the substance
proposed by some quantam mechanicists. These particles have a diameter of 1.6x10^35 m and a mass of 2.2x10^-8 kg. The density is a whopping 5x10^96 kg per cubiccentimeter (some quantam mechanicists refer to Planck particles as "micro-black
holes")! Now if the stars, planets, etc. are rotating in this dense medium, then really,
the relative motion between the stars, galaxies, etc., and the aether is very small (i.e.,
local motion). Within this rotating aether, planets can orbit stars, galaxies can rotate,
etc. This is allowed because the de Broglie wavelength (i.e., particle-wave duality) of
normal matter (baryonic matter) is 10's of orders of magnitude different than Planck
particles (non-baryonic matter), and thus there is little or no direct interaction between
them. Thus in the modern Tychonic system, the sun can revolve with the universe
around the earth, and the planets orbit the sun with Keplerian type orbits.
The aether becomes a rotating frame of reference. Depending on the property of the
aether, light and gravity can be transmitted through the aether. This can lead to a
speed of light of "c' and almost instantaneous gravitational reaction over large
distances (i.e., no "action at a distance" problem like Newtonian theory and relativity).
Also, a Le Sagean corpuscular gravitational mechanism could be introduced.