I'm guessing you also have a explanation for the coriolis effect other than that it's due to the rotation of the earth?

Chesley

R. Sungenis: The Coriolis effect's cause is no different than the cause for centrifugal or Euler forces. They are either the effect of a rotating earth in a fixed universe or a rotating universe around a fixed earth. All the forces will be the same, so says modern science.

Ok, thanks although I'm not sure what you mean by "Schwarzchild radius at Saturn".  A Schwarzchild radius is a radius at which a object is compressed to where it becomes a black Hole.

Thanks,

Chesley

R. Sungenis: Yes, but it is also the point at which the centrifugal and Coriolis forces reach their limit in a rotating mass. if the rotating mass is the universe, the limit is around the orbit of Saturn. Here is the excerpt on that topic in my book Galileo Was Wrong:

Bondi’s Geocentrism

 Like the rest of the physicists to whom we ascribe the word “geocentrism” in this chapter, Sir Hermann Bondi (d. 2005) would not refer to himself as a geocentrist. He, nevertheless, would be one of the first to admit that modern physics ably defends geocentric cosmology. This becomes abundantly clear in a 1994 paper Bondi wrote titled: “Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity.”[1]

Bondi discovered two important facts from General Relativity that can be employed to defend geocentrism. First, Bondi derived and quantified what has been traditionally known as angular momentum, discovering in the process that the universe’s cylindrical symmetry prohibits gravitational waves from carrying angular momentum. This finding resolves a critique of geocentrism which posited that, to conserve angular momentum, the universe would slow down if a mass is raised on Earth and accelerate if the same mass were lowered. Bondi showed that, according to General Relativity, this is not the case, and thus the criticism is neutralized. Related to the above, Bondi also discovered that, according to General Relativity, all the mass beyond the Schwarzschild radius (where the tangential speed of the universe exceeds c) can be ignored, since it will contribute nothing more to the frame dragging and centrifugal forces already present. He writes:

The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system….What is the nature of this limit? For such a cylinder the required angular velocity makes the tangential velocity at r = r2 equal to the speed of light….Both the space drag on the core and A [angular momentum] will be unaffected by such outside layers….The conservation of A occurs even if gravitational waves are emitted by the cylinder. This is perhaps not surprising, since the cylindrical symmetry of the waves precludes their carrying angular momentum…. Therefore the intrinsic nature of the angular momentum of the inner becomes patent as it is wholly unaffected by anything that goes on outside. Thus there is no transfer of angular momentum between outer and inner.[2]

Bondi arrived at the above derivation a little earlier in his paper:

It is a remarkable fact, discussed later, and of some relevance to Machian considerations, that this unique conserved measure of angular momentum appropriate to the symmetry imposed is independent of any superposed state of rotation.[3]

The same conclusion was stated in a different way in Bondi’s abstract: “It emerges that angular momentum and space drag behave very differently as thicker and thicker spinning cylinders are studied.”[4] Hence, from the perspective of General Relativity, Bondi makes geocentrism completely feasible. That is, if the argument against geocentrism that appeals to the conservation of angular momentum is valid, it would violate the strong principle of Relativity. To rescue Relativity theory from this failure, Bondi, by means of his meticulous tensor analysis, has simultaneously refuted the objection as it has traditionally been directed against geocentrism. The angular velocities used by Bondi are completely compatible with geocentric mechanics, since his analysis specifically validates cosmologies which have rotations at tangential velocities far greater than the speed of light.

[1] Royal Society Proceedings, Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 57-66.

[2] “Angular Momentum of Cylindrical Systems in General Relativity Royal Society Proceedings,” Series A - Mathematical and Physical Sciences, vol. 446, no. 1926, July 8, 1994, pp. 63-64.

[3] Ibid., p. 61. My thanks to Martin Selbrede for bringing Bondi’s paper to my attention, and his help in analyzing it.

[4] Ibid., p. 57.

"Geocentrism says only that the universe rotates around the Earth once per day, and in that rotation it carries the stars with it. Thus, compared to the universe within which they are contained, the stars are not moving at all, save for their minuscule independent movements."  So do you not accept that the stars, or at least some, are as far away from earth as modern science tells us they are?  I don't see how just stating that the universe rotates around the earth once a day and the stars are in it, negates the fact that they would be moving very fast if they are at great distances.  Also, do you believe there is an "ether" thru which light travels?  Believing the Michelson-Morley experiment was flawed by assuming the earth is moving instead of as you believe that it's stationary, would seem to leave the possibility open that an ether still exist.  Hopefully that made sense what I'm asking.
Chesley

R. Sungenis: To answer the first question, all motion is relative to the environment that the object is moving. In other words, if the universe is rotating around the earth, then the stars that are contained within the universe are not moving with respect to the universe. And since the universe is the only reference frame that could exist (since there is nothing outside the universe), then the objects that are carried by the universe's rotation are not moving at or above the speed of light.

As for the distance to the stars, it makes little difference whether the stars are close or far away. The same principles will hold. That is why I mentioned the Schwarzchild radius at Saturn in my last email. Anything distance beyond that makes no difference in regards to velocity.

But as for the distance to the stars, you should pick up a copy of GWW. We have a whole section on how the distance to the stars is measured, and it is by no means an exact science.

As for ether, yes, a geocentric universe will usually incorporate ether since the MM experiments give ether as the alternative to Einstein's Special Relativity, even by default. But without any further discussion here, let me give you a section in our book that talks about the ether.

Best to you,

Robert

But Didn’t Science Prove that

Ether Doesn’t Exist?

Although a little more esoteric to this debate, nevertheless, there is a common objection that often stems from Albert Einstein’s interpretation of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. Since the Michelson-Morley experiment assumed the Earth was moving, yet their apparatus could not detect any such movement against what was then understood as “ether,” Einstein concluded that ether did not exist, that is, space is empty; it is a vacuum that does not contain any substance at all. But most scientists today have rejected Einstein’s view and have come to realize that space does, indeed, have substance, and one that reaches to the outer limits of the universe. The days of negating a scientific theory based on its belief in ether are over. As even the Relativist (and 1998 Nobel physics laureate) Robert B. Laughlin admits:

It is ironic that Einstein’s most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed…. Einstein… utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have. The word “ether” has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum.

In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth’s orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right…. Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

And he concludes with this important paragraph:

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.[1]

We cite Laughlin knowing full well that in his frequent use of the word “relativistic” he, nevertheless, believes the Earth revolves around the sun, and most likely has never given any particular consideration to a geocentric universe. In any case, his expertise is valuable for this debate since: (a) ether is a constituent part of the geocentric universe, and (b) despite Relativity’s initial rejection of ether, Laughlin is quite candid that Quantum Mechanics has sufficiently demonstrated ether’s existence to the once skeptical Einstein audience. Unfortunately, Laughlin is not so candid regarding the fact that Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are diametrically opposed to one another. We will cover the issue of ether, Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics in more detail in later chapters.

Even among Einstein’s supporters the understanding that space is filled with substance was never relinquished. Louis de Broglie (d. 1987), the Nobel laureate famous for his discovery of the electron’s wave in the 1920s, wrote in 1971 that the concept of ether, or as he calls it “the hidden medium,” needed to be revived. Critiquing the model of space proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1926, de Broglie longs for the days of fixed points reminiscent of Descartes’ Cartesian axes and Newton’s absolute space:

Everything becomes clear if the idea that particles always have a position in space through time is brought back…. According to my current thinking, the particle is always located within a physical wave….The movement of the particle is assumed to be the superposition of a regular movement… and of a Brownian movement due to random energy exchanges which take place between the wave and a hidden medium, which acts as a subquantum thermostat. The point of prime importance in this model is that at each moment the particle occupies a well-defined position in space, and this re-establishes the clear meaning which the configuration space had in classical mechanics.”[2]

Even Albert Einstein eventually succumbed to the need for some type of ether. In 1916 he wrote: 

…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…once again “empty” space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity….Since in the new theory, metric facts can no longer be separated from “true” physical facts, the concepts of “space” and “ether” merge together.[3]

Ludwik Kostro, whose book Einstein and the Ether has revealed the heretofore undisclosed history of ether science in the twentieth century, states the following candid conclusion:

Modern science has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. This philosophy, as we know, used the word “ether” to designate the particular kind of matter that filled the universe. This term was used throughout the history of philosophy and science, and it was also current at the beginning of this century. A resumption of its use at the dawn of this new century is now a fact. Since, according to the General Theory of Relativity and other modern branches of physics, the space and time of the universe do not constitute a vacuum, but a structured material plenum characterized by different physical quantities, the historical and traditional word “ether” is the most appropriate to express these features of the universe.[4]

Astrophysicist Toivo Jaakkola puts things in perspective:

A few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed – as the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed photons)…. All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR, gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be conceived in the framework of this ether concept.[5]

Lastly, the authors of the book, The Philosophy of Vacuum, state:

Today the vacuum is recognized as a rich physical medium….A general theory of the vacuum is thus a theory of everything, a universal theory. It would be appropriate to call the vacuum “ether” once again.[6]

Later in our treatise we will find that the very ether Louis de Broglie desired offers a solution to the wave/particle conundrum that has hampered modern science since de Broglie first discovered that electrons produce waves. Any particle that moves through a medium will, indeed, create waves. In fact, a return to ether will help solve one of the most mysterious and perplexing problems in Quantum Mechanics today, the phenomenon of “entanglement” – the spooky connection between pairs of photons, electrons or atoms even though they are separated by great distances. Perhaps this was why John Stewart Bell, the inventor of Bell’s Theorem to answer the phenomenon of entanglement, stated in a BBC radio interview: “Yes, the idea that there is an ether…that is a perfectly coherent point of view.”[7]  

[1] Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, 2005, pp. 120-121. The two chapters of Laughlin’s book that deal with these issues are: “The Nuclear Family,” (pp. 99-116 and “The Fabric of Space-Time” (pp. 117-126).

[2] Louis de Broglie, “Waves and Particles,” Physics Bulletin, 22, February 1971, single page. In the same article he adds: “…whereas in my original concept I assumed that the coexistence of waves and particles, perceived by Einstein in 1905 in respect of light in his theory of light quanta, should be extended to all types of particle[s] in the form of the coexistence of a physical wave with a particle incorporated in it. Moreover, Schrödinger’s ψ wave was soon to lose the nature of a physical wave on the day when Max Born put forward the hypothesis that it was a probability, and for that reason should be normalized, which is equivalent to assigning to it an arbitrary amplitude selected by the theorist. Thus, starting from a synthetic idea of the coexistence in physical space of waves and particles, a theory in which there was no longer any wave or particle was arrived at!….But as soon as Schrödinger’s works were published I was struck by the paradox involved, as indeed I had already emphasized in an article which appeared in 1928 [Selected Papers on Wave Mechanics, London: Blackie, p. 130]. For since Schrödinger gave up the idea that particles existed in physical space, they no longer have well defined coordinates and it is difficult to imagine how the configuration space can be constructed with nonexistent coordinates….It may assist in clarifying this point to recall that in classical mechanics particles are treated as a first approximation as material points which have well defined coordinates in physical space at every moment….But this representation, clear and logical though it is, loses all its meaning in a theory in which particles have no spatial position as in current quantum mechanics” (ibid).

[3] Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 2.

[4] Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, pp. 186-187.

[5] “Action-at-a-Distance and Local Action in Gravitation,” in Pushing Gravity, ed., Matthew Edwards, pp. 157-159.

[6] S. Saunders and H. R. Brown, editors, The Philosophy of Vacuum, 1991, p. 251.

[7] Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, p. 154, citing M. Jammer’s, “John Stewart Bell and the Debate on Significance of his Contributions to the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics,” in Bell’s Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics, eds. A. Van der Merwe, F. Felleri, G. Tarozzi, Singapore, 1992, p. 5; also cited in P. C. W. Davies and J. R. Brown, eds., The Ghost in the Atom, 1986, pp. 49-50.

Robert,
I have struggled with trying to believe in geocentrism, but can't
reconcile it with what I've learned in school.  One of the biggest
problems I have is if everything is rotating around the earth even an
object such as Neptune would have to be traveling faster that the speed
of light to rotate around the earth in 24 hrs.  Not to mention the same
principle applied to much further objects.  How would you explain this?
Are they closer than science tells us they are?
Also didn't the rotation of the earth around the sun have to enter in
to the calculations for such a mission as Voyager which explored
Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus, etc?

Chesley

R. Sungenis: Chesley, let me answer the second question first. For the first question, I will give you an excerpt from my book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right.

Regarding sending out rockets, probes, satellites, etc., it makes no difference whether you use an Earth-centered system or a Sun-centered system. In fact, NASA uses both, and, in fact, they use the Earth-centered system to correct the Sun-centered system. The reason both can be used is that the distances, dimensions, and changes in distance between the sun, earth and the planets does not change from one system to the other. We show this on our CDROM animation that you get when you purchase the books.

Here is the excerpt from our book that deals with this issues:

NASA Use the Heliocentric System

for its Probes and Satellites?

In reality, NASA will use whatever system is more convenient, the heliocentric or the geocentric, since NASA’s orbital mechanics know that both models are equivalent, mathematically and geometrically. If they are sending probes near the sun, they will probably use a heliocentric model, since it is easier to make calculations when one considers the sun as fixed in space with the planets moving around it. If they are sending up satellites near the Earth, however, they will use a geocentric model, or what is known in the industry as a “fixed-Earth coordinate system.” This is because it is much easier to calculate and chart the movements of satellites circling the Earth if the Earth is understood as stationary in space. This fact is easily proven from the space agency’s own documentation. For example, in a letter written to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) making the following inquiry: “Is the present movement of GOES [Geostationary Satellite] planned and executed on the basis of a fixed earth or a rotating earth?” the answer returned by the department head of GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA was very simple: “Fixed earth.”[1]

At other times, NASA tries to give the impression to a gullible public that only the heliocentric model will work. Through email correspondence in October 2005, NASA representatives personally invited this author to their on-line Question and Answer forum.[2] A few weeks prior to the invitation, the same NASA representatives had answered a question on their forum from another person regarding whether NASA’s probes could be sent into space and tracked using the geocentric system rather than the heliocentric. The NASA representatives answered in the negative, stating: “If the universe were geocentric, all of our calculations for space probe trajectories would be wrong.” The person who asked the question then sent NASA’s answer to this author as proof for the heliocentric system. Accepting NASA’s invitation, I then sent a formal question to the NASA website asking them to show proof why a geocentric system would not work. After six weeks of not receiving an answer, I contacted the representatives by private email and asked if they were planning to answer the question. They wrote back to me and stated that they did not plan to answer it. After I tried to convince them that, since in this public forum they had, by their initial assertions against geocentric navigation, already committed themselves, and thus had an obligation to the public to defend their position, they still refused to answer. As a rejoinder, I told them that I would be including the entire communication between them and myself in this present book. The NASA representatives then demanded that their names be withheld, stating:

We do not give you permission to quote us or use our names in your book or on your website. Although we work at NASA centers, we are not NASA employees and for us to be presented in your work as official representatives of NASA would be inappropriate and misleading.

I have obliged their request, except to quote the above paragraph. My suggestion to them was the following:

As for whether you work for NASA or not, the website has a nasa.gov address. So if you’re not affiliated with NASA then I suggest you find a different website address, since otherwise, you are misleading the public. Of course, we can avoid all this extracurricular activity if you, as an astrophysicist, would tell us why a geocentric system would not work. The ball is in your court.

To this day there has been no response from them. As one can see quite readily from the above exchanges, although one government agency, at least in a private letter, was willing to divulge the truth about the use of fixed-Earth mechanics, another agency refused to be as forthcoming when the audience included the millions of potential readers on the Internet. This is really no surprise to us. Those who control our space programs have a vested interest in keeping the public under the illusion of Copernicanism, since all their funding and projects are based on Copernicus’ premises, including the quest to find life in other worlds. Only those who are courageous and knowledgeable enough can expose the illusion and allow the public to see the cosmic shell game that has been occurring for quite a long time. One such party is the team of Ruyong Wang and Ronald Hatch, two former government satellite engineers who know the truth about the illusion. In one of their investigations on the Global Positioning System they write:

…NavCom Technology, Inc. has licensed software developed by the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) which, because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame. Because of some discrepancies between our standard earth-centered earth-fixed solution results and the JPL results, we investigated the input parameters to the solution very carefully. The measured and theoretical ranges computed in the two different frames agreed precisely, indicating that the Sagnac correction had been applied in each frame.

As the discussion of the Sagnac effect indicates the fundamental question regarding the speed of light is the following: Is the speed of light constant with respect to the observer (receiver) or is it constant with respect to the chosen inertial ECI frame? Clearly the GPS range equation indicates the speed of light is constant with respect to the chosen frame…The JPL equations, used to track signals from interplanetary space probes, verify that the speed of light is with respect to the chosen frame. In the JPL equations, the chosen frame is the solar system barycentric frame….Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame – not as constant with respect to the receivers.[3]

In other words, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) employs the Earth Centered Inertial frame (ECI) for probes sent out near the Earth (as does NASA and the GPS), yet the Jet Propulsion Lab claims to use the “solar system barycentric frame” for deep space navigation. Wang and Hatch tell us, however, “the Jet Propulsion Lab…because of historical reasons, does the entire computation in the ECI frame.” Not only does the Jet Propulsion Lab use the ECI frame exclusively, Wang and Hatch tell us that the Lab corrects the calculations in its “solar system barycentric frame” so that they match the ECI frame! We can see clearly that the Earth-centered frame is the standard, and thus, use of the ‘solar system barycentric frame’ is superfluous. Once the Lab’s computer makes the corrections to the solar system barycentric frame, in reality the deep space navigation is actually using the ECI frame – a fixed Earth. The public wouldn’t have been made privy to this sleight-of-hand manipulation except for the fact that two knowledgeable insiders, Wang and Hatch, have told the real story. In effect, the Earth Centered Inertial frame (e.g., geocentrism) is the only frame that allows the GPS and various space probes to work properly. The significance of these facts will be highlighted when we deal with the Sagnac Effect in Chapter 5, and the Global Positioning Satellites in Appendix 6.

[1] The original letter was addressed to Charles E. Liddick of the United States Department of Commerce, Office of Satellite Operations, Washington, DC 20233 on November 17, 1989. Mr. Liddick transferred the inquiry to Lee Ranne, from GOES/POLAR Navigation, Office of Satellite Operations at the NOAA offices in the department of National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service, who then wrote to, the questioner, Marshall Hall, on November 22, 1989, with a copy to Mr. Liddick. Original letters are cited in Marshall Hall’s The Earth is Not Moving, Cornelia, Georgia, Fair Education Foundation, 1994, p. 261.

[2] (http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/ask_an_

astronomer.html).  

[3] Ruyong Wang and Ronald R. Hatch, Conducting a Crucial Experiment of the Constancy of the Speed of Light Using GPS, ION GPS 58th Annual Meeting / CIGTF 21st Guidance Test Symposium, 2002, p. 500.

As for the first question, the planets are not traveling anywhere near the speed of light. The planets are traveling their normal speed around the sun, and the sun is traveling at 18.5 miles per second around the earth (assuming that the distance of 93 million miles from earth to sun is correct. The thing that rotates around the earth in 24 hours is the universe itself. According to modern science, this is a fact of science, that is, science allows for a rotating universe around a fixed earth just as it allows a rotating earth in a fixed universe. In fact, in the 1960s physicist Herman Bondi showed that beyond the orbit of Saturn, or what they would call the Schwarzchild radius for our solar system, there is no limitation to how fast the universe can rotate around the earth, especially when they use the rules of General Relativity. The ironic thing is, both Special and General Relativity were invented by Einstein in an effort to answer the experimental evidence from the late 1800s that showed the Earth was standing still in space, but in the process of trying to keep the Earth moving with his Relativity theories, Einstein actually gave credibility to geocentrism. I show all this in my book. At any rate, here is one section of the book that is simple enough for the layman to understand:

Isn’t it Impossible for the Stars

to Travel so Fast Around the Earth?

Another common objection to placing the Earth in the center of our local system is that it would also need to be in the center of the universe, and thus, it would be impossible for the stars, being so far away, to revolve around the Earth on a daily basis, since they would be required to travel faster than the speed of light to complete their daily trek. As with all the objections in this section, we will answer them in more detail in later chapters, but for now we can respond in two ways. First, even assuming for the sake of argument that geocentrism holds that the stars travel faster than light (which it does not); still, those who base their objections on the tenets of modern science have little room to mount criticism. As a popular scientist explains for the novice, in Relativity theory:

…it is permissible to assume that the Earth is a nonrotating frame of reference. From this point of view, the stars will have a circular velocity around the Earth that is much greater than the speed of light. A star only ten light-years away has a relative velocity around the Earth of twenty thousand times the speed of light.[1]

A more technical book on Relativity written for the scientist admits the same:

Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have…linear velocities exceeding 3 × 10⁸ m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 10⁸ 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…. 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 × 10⁸ m/sec under these conditions.[2]

Einstein himself admitted this very principle:

In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light).[3]

Hence, according to Einstein’s own words, a limitation on the speed of light is only true when gravity does not affect the light, or, as a corollary point, variations in the gravitational field will allow variations in the speed of light. Since in a rotating universe the gravitational force increases in proportion to the radial distance from Earth, consequently, the farther the distance, the faster light will be able to travel. As we will see many times in this book, the principles of General Relativity invariably support a geocentric universe.

Another important issue concerning the speed of light is precisely this question: what does modern physics mean when it says that something cannot exceed the speed of light? It’s not what you might logically think. Normally we would interpret the light speed barrier as an inherent property of nature in which, all things being equal, a material object cannot reach the speed of light, since it would actually need to be light in order to travel as fast as light. But this is not how Relativity theory explains it. In a manner of speaking, modern scientists have determined that ‘all things are not equal.’ The ‘inequality’ was invented when science had a very difficult time explaining the result of the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. As we noted briefly earlier (and will investigate in much more detail in later chapters), in order to provide modern science an escape from having to conclude that the Earth was motionless in space, various scientists explained the Michelson-Morley experiment by postulating that matter compresses when it moves. First, they committed the most egregious fallacy in logic: using as proof that which they had not first proven. To put it bluntly, they assumed the Earth was moving as the basis to interpret the experiment that appeared to show the Earth wasn’t moving. As one of the world’s premier physicists of that day, Arthur Eddington, put it:

But it now appears that the allowance made for the motion of the observer has hitherto been too crude – a fact overlooked because in practice all observers share nearly the same motion, that of the Earth. Physical space and time are found to be closely bound up with this motion of the observer.[4]

In this case, Michelson’s sensitive instruments, specifically designed to detect the Earth’s motion, were said to register a “null” result for such an effect because, due to the pressure generated by the assumed orbit of the Earth, the instruments shrank during the course of the experiment. As Eddington put it: “This would mean that the Earth’s diameter in the direction of its motion is shortened by 2½ inches.”[5] Having no other way to prohibit the Earth from being motionless in space, most scientists succumbed to the “shrinking matter” hypothesis, and soon it became standard fare in the world of physics. Dubbed as the “Fitzgerald contraction,” and later made into an equation called the “Lorentz transformation,” it was so readily accepted that it became the pat answer to every motion problem in physics. Among those answers 

was why no object could ever reach the speed of light. As physicist Arthur Eddington explains it:

It is no use trying to overtake a flash of light; however fast you go it is always traveling away from you at 186,000 miles a second. Now from one point of view this is a rather unworthy deception that Nature has practiced upon us. Let us take our favourite observer who travels at 161,000 miles a second and send him in pursuit of the flash of light. It is going 25,000 miles a second faster than he is; but that is not what he will report. Owing to the contraction of his standard scale his miles are only half-miles; owing to the slowing down of his clocks his seconds are double-seconds. His measurement would therefore make the speed 100,000 miles a second (really half-miles per double-second). He makes a further mistake in synchronizing the clocks with which he records the velocity….This brings the speed up to 186,000 miles a second. From his own point of view the traveler is lagging hopelessly behind the light; he does not realize what a close race he is making of it, because his measuring appliances have been upset.[6]

So here we see that the “traveler” is, as Eddington admits, coming close to, and could possibly match, the speed of light, but because his instruments have shrunk and his clock moves slower due to his excessive speed, it will only appear as if it is impossible to catch the light beam. Welcome to the bizarre world of Relativity. On the stage is reality versus illusion, but by the very nature of its principles, Relativity is at a loss to tell us which part is reality and which part is illusion. Perhaps this is why Eddington had few qualms once referring to the Fitzgerald contraction as: “The shortening of the moving rod is true, but it is not really true.”[7] Of course, we need to remind ourselves that the so-called ‘shrinking of the instruments’ and ‘slowing of the clock’ is all the result of the fallacious interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, an interpretation that was forced upon the science establishment in order to keep the Earth from being motionless in space. To this very day, no scientist in the world has ever explained, let alone proven, the precise physical reason why matter should shrink in length when it moves, or how time can dilate in the process, yet they believe it nonetheless, for, as we will see later, it is their only defense against going back to pre-Copernican days.

We can also answer the objection by noting that, although it is to our advantage to use modern physics against itself as we do when we point out that General Relativity permits a body to move faster than the speed of light, the celestial mechanics of geocentrism, in fact, does not claim that the stars move faster than light. Geocentrism says only that the universe rotates around the Earth once per day, and in that rotation it carries the stars with it. Thus, compared to the universe within which they are contained, the stars are not moving at all, save for their minuscule independent movements.

Mechanically speaking, the rotation of the universe is an integral facet of the geocentric system so as to act as a counterbalance to the inward pressure of gravity. It just so happens that the centrifugal force created by a 24-hour rotation period prohibits the stars and other material in the universe from collapsing inward (a problem, incidentally, that Newton and Einstein recognized in their respective universes, which Newton attempted to answer by opting for an infinite universe, and Einstein by his infamous “cosmological constant,” neither of which provided an adequate solution). An advocate of Relativity can raise no objections against geocentrism’s rotating universe since Relativity sees no difference, or has no way to distinguish between, a rotating Earth among fixed stars or stars that revolve around a fixed Earth. The two are relativistically equivalent.

[1] Martin Gardner, Relativity Explosion, 1976, p. 68.

[2] An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William Geraint Vaughn Rosser, 1964, p. 460. W. G. V. Rosser, Ph.D. was the senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University.

[3] Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85.

[4] Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, 1923, p. v. Interestingly enough, Eddington later decries man’s tendency to assume certain things as true which have not been proven. He writes: “Now the most dangerous hypotheses are those which are tacit and unconscious. So the standpoint of relativity proposes tentatively to do without these hypotheses (not making any others in their place); and it discovers that they are quite unnecessary and are not supported by any known fact” (ibid., p. 28). Unfortunately, Eddington failed to see a moving Earth as one of those beliefs “not supported by any known fact.” In various other places, Eddington confirms our suspicions of his predisposition: “It is well to remember that there is reasonable justification for adopting the principle of relativity even if the evidence is insufficient to prove it” (ibid., p. 21).

[5] Space, Time and Gravitation, p. 20. He continues with the same question-begging logic in the next sentence: “The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.”

[6] Sir Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, from the 1927 Gifford Lectures, 1929, p. 54. All spellings of words in the quote are from Eddington’s British.

[7] Arthur S. Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, pp. 33-34, emphasis his. Opposed to Eddington, some Relativists believe: (1) “The contraction is real.” Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning” (Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical” (Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24). (2) “The contraction is not real.” E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!” (Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76). (3) “The contraction is only apparent.” Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow” (Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened” (Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes” (The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255). (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.” Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39. (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.” Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real” (Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25). (6) “The contraction is mathematical.” Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81).