Pro-geocentricity

Many geocentrists believe in a non-orbiting and non-moving earth, not just a universe-centered earth. Several pieces of evidence have been introduced to challenge this view. Most, if not all, evidences against geocentricity can be challenged.


 * Foucault's pendulum only demonstrates there is a force moving the pendulum against the earth, but it can also be demonstrating the forces of a universe rotating round the earth.
 * The measurements of relative motion of outer planets and stars are exactly that: relative. In the Tycho Brahe Terra-planetary system, a system which is based on observation, the relative movement of the planets would be the same.

With regards to the stars and the planetary movement, two assumptions are made by the heliocentrist: firstly, that the speed of light is constant in all of space; and secondly that the planets and stars have to move in excess of the accepted speed of light. Based on work by Michelson and Gale, Sagnac, and Anderson, the constancy of the speed of light can be questioned, if not rejected, and the existence of an aether-like substance in the universe can be posited. One geocentric theory states that the stars and planets are embedded in such a medium which rotates once a day, which is backed up by some findings by Thirring. Since the stars themselves are not moving, but the medium in which they are embedded, and they are not moving with respect to that aether, there is no problem with the speed of light. This is more extensively dealt with in [6].
 * Gravity and the forces created by a rotating universe can explain the differences in escape velocity and why geostationary satellites stay up.
 * The Coriolis effect would exist on a stationary earth with a rotating universe. To quote as an example,

"In fact, Hans Thirring, famous for the Lense-Thirring effect, found that for a rotating shell of matter, the interior field of the shell is similar to the field in a rotating system of coordinates, leading to gravitational forces similar to the centrifugal and Coriolis effects in the Heliocentric system." [6]


 * The idea that earthquakes change the earth's rotation is questionable for two reasons. Firstly, it has already been admitted that the rotation of the earth cannot be measured absolutely.  So the question has to be where such conclusions came from to note changes in a speed that hasn't been measured.  Secondly, the changes that were said to be produced, by other sources, were a slowing down effect on the earth's rotation.  The problem is that there have been many many documented earthquakes in recent history, let alone ancient history, not even including possible earthquakes that have not been recorded throughout human history.  This compounded by the fact that earthquakes had to be part of the flood of Noah.  So this would have had a significant affect on the earth's rotation over time.  Yet historical recordings of the sidereal year, that is the yearly rotation of stars, or lets say the rotation of the earth, compared with recent recordings shows that there has been no significant change in that period, apart from a slight oscillation back and forth within a couple of minutes, which does not account for all these earthquakes and the effect they would have.
 * Parallax is also possible in a modified Tychonian system where the movement/rotation of the universe is hinged on the sun, which is hinged on the non-moving earth. Others who say that the rotation of the whole universe is hinged on the earth put parallax down to a form of aberration.
 * The relative frequency of shooting stars says nothing conclusive about the rotation of the earth as opposed to the rotation of the universe.
 * The red shift measured in stars' spectra changes in an annual cycle; if this is true then it can still be accounted by the same universe-rotating Tychonian model.


 * Centrifugal force helps demonstrate that the earth is stationary and motionless. If the earth was rotating we would have different speeds at different latitudes of the earth, and different centrifugal forces causing large variations in a persons weight at two different points, or the value of a gold bar. A value of a gold bar would be less at the equator since there is greater centrifugal force (if the earth was rotating), than a gold bar at the poles.


 * Its a fact that you need to calibrate a weighing machine depending on what latitude it will be used. Well known by all manufactures. A balance weighing machine will not be affected, but a spring weighing machine will be. A (70Kg) human body will be about "200 grams lighter" on the equator then compared on the north pole.

Related References

 * Bouw, Gerardus D. Geocentricity.  1992.  Cleveland: Assosiation for Biblical Astronomy.
 * Sungenis, Robert. Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right, Vol. I: The Scientific Case for Geocentrism.  2007. Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.
 * Sungenis, Robert. Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right, Vol. II: The Historical Case for Geocentrism.  2007. Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc.