Fluid Dynamics and a Non-Rotating Earth?

The Mathigicians can offer no arguments against using standard physics to explain how and why a geocentric model could be valid.

Professor Wizard having some laughs in the class with fluid dynamics. There is nothing in the maths of ‘standard science’ including fluid-dynamics which can reasonably object to different models of the universe including geocentricity.

“The gyroscope is rotationally at rest relative to the inertial frames in its neighborhood. It and the local inertial frames rotate relative to the distant galaxies with the angular velocity Ω because the Earth’s rotation “drags” the local inertial frames along with it.

Notice that near the north and south poles the local inertial frames rotate in the same direction as the Earth does (Ω parallel to J), but near the equator they rotate in the opposite direction (Ω antiparallel to J; compare Ω with the magnetic field of the Earth!).” (Martin Selbrede, “Geocentricity’s Critics Refuse to Do Their Homework,” The Chalcedon Report, 1994, p. 11)

We have discussed how geocentricity could be valid. The above quote opens another door to this possibility – fluid dynamics. Relativity is false, but even using their own theorems, there is nothing within Relativity which precludes geocentricity. Indeed, ‘The’ Einstein’s scientism is more supportive of geocentricity than heliocentricity.

Is it possible that the Universe could rotate around the Earth? Standard-Waves, Plancktons and Newton's inertial mass?

Fluidly Dynamic

Let’s have a gander at fluid dynamics and the use of General Relativity.

First, we must understand that space is not a ‘vacuum’, it is not empty, but is suffused with materiality, which in previous centuries was named the ‘aether’. This substack has many posts on why the aether exists and how this (yet again) disproves the Einstotle’s philosophy.

Second, if we view Tychonism or geocentricity, this aether medium is carried with the universe as it rotates around the Earth. What we don’t know is if this aether ‘drags’ on the Earth’s surface and forces the Earth to rotate. As other posts have outlined, the answer could be no.

Relativists themselves do not believe in an aether (aether-denialism) and thereby do not support the forced rotation of this planet by such forces. We can now use this precept to see if geocentricity is possible.

Coriolis Force, Newton's physics and Geo-centricity. Absent in 'modern science'.

“Consider a rotating, solid sphere immersed in a viscous fluid. As it rotates, the sphere will drag the fluid along with it. At various points in the fluid, set down little rods, and watch how the fluid rotates them as it flows past. Near the poles the fluid will clearly rotate the rods in the same direction as the star [i.e., sphere] rotates.

But near the equator, because the fluid is dragged more rapidly at small radii than at large, the end of a rod closest to the sphere is dragged by the fluid more rapidly than the far end of the rod. Consequently, the rod rotates in the direction opposite to the rotation of the sphere (Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, Gravitation, p. 1120).

This is fascinating and is an experiment you can do at home or in the classroom. What does it mean? If we accept the above experiment, we can see why a rotation of the heavens would not (necessarily) force the Earth to rotate. Back to the aether ‘drag’ denied by Relativists.

As the heavens or universe rotates, if that rotation is aligned with the poles of this planet, it rotates with the same angular velocity, and given Newton’s law of inertia, the Earth remains unmoved.¹

We can explain this in simple terms.

Rods and Rings

The description of the above phenomenon can be easily shown. Let’s replace rods with rings. In the image below we have a sphere in the middle which represents the Earth in a counter-clockwise rotation. At the north and south poles the rings will rotate in the same counter-clockwise direction as the Earth, as given above by the Relativists we quoted. At the equatorial plane, however, the red rings will rotate in the clockwise direction.

Fig. 1: Earth is rotating counter‐ clockwise; rings at north and south poles are rotating counter‐clockwise; rings at equator are rotating clockwise.

Fig. 2: Same motions but from a top‐down view

Let’s break down what this means in simple language.

1. We have the Earth’s sphere and there is something called the tangent, which is the flat plane that touches the surface. Perpendicular to this tangent (90 degree angle), we have the part of the ring closest to the this tangent which is the ‘small radii’ while that farther away is the ‘large radii’.

2. Now reverse the situation.

3. If we want to cause the sphere to rotate clockwise, we would need to turn the rods at the poles clockwise, and the ones at the equators counter-clockwise.

4. To turn the sphere, the rotation of the particles (or rings) at the poles must be the opposite to that at the equator.

5. However, in the case of a rotating universe, all the particles (rings) are rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire firmament.

6. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite direction as that acting near the poles.

Fig 3: Locked

The figure above indicates that the Earth is in a geo-lock position.

· The four outside red rings are moving in a clockwise direction.

· These represent the universe’s rotation around the Earth’s equator, while the red ring in the center represents the universe’s rotation around the Earth’s north or south poles.

· The four red rings represent the universe’s counter‐clockwise force at the Earth’s equator, but the red ring in the center represents the universe’s clockwise force on the Earth’s north and south poles.

· This would mean that the opposing forces are situated within the on‐axis body, namely the axis of the Earth, rather than in contra‐ rotating equatorial and polar frames.

· The result is a neutralizing of forces to zero, namely, the Geo‐Lock Position.

This is simple enough to demonstrate in real life. There is nothing in standard physics which would object to this demonstration.

Shells and Shears

We can use some calculus to prove the above.

Relativity’s own maths show that as one integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, the Earth is in fact locked in place.

What does this mean? In physics, the ‘infinitesimal shell’ concept is used to analyse the Earth's structure, density, or gravitational field. The planet is treated as series of very thin ‘shells’, and mass and gravitational force calculations are conducted to show changes as one moves outward from the centre of the Earth.

(video on the shell concept)

This leads to the ‘shearing’ concept of force change. As you move outward from the Earth’s centre there is a resulting ‘inertial shear’ which is distributed throughout the Earth’s internal volume.

In plain language the ‘inertial shear’ refers to a phenomenon in fluid dynamics, where different parts of a fluid or a rotating object move at different speeds or in different directions due to their inertia (movement), as we discussed at the beginning of the post.

An example might be the use of a large spinning disc. You spin the disc and try to stop just a part of the disc from rotating. The other parts of that same disc will want to keep spinning due to their inertia (movement). The difference between the stopped part of the disc, and the remainder which is still rotating is called a ‘shear’ (tearing motion).

Essentially, shearing is the resistance to a change in motion within a system, leading to different parts of the system moving at different rates.

In physics and fluid dynamics, ‘shearing’ is used to illustrate how forces are distributed within a moving or a rotating system. It is used to explain things like planetary atmospheres, ocean currents, and even the internal dynamics of stars.

(video on shearing)

Station Stasis

Using the shearing concept it can be demonstrated that if the Earth was pushed out of its satellite or ‘station keeping’ position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium state. ‘Station keeping’ is a physics term which designates an orbit or fixed location in space. If we view the Earth as a ‘satellite’, it has its own orbit and fixed position in space. The aether, drag, gravity, solar radiation, and many other variables act on the ‘satellite’ and attempt to derange the satellite from its ‘station’.

These concepts and the attendant Newtonian motions and forces would be more than enough to counter-balance any torque from the Moon, the Sun, or the planets as they revolve around the Earth. Such theories do not violate the standard model and its physics or maths.

Bottom Line

Satellite and fluid dynamics can be used to support a geocentric system. They cannot be used as they often are, as arguments against the same. There are dozens of posts on this substack about disproofs of heliocentricity. The author is not claiming that either geo-or-helio centricity is a fact, but is simply pointing out that the evidence for a model in which the Earth rotates at 1000 mph, and migrates 585 million miles per annum around the plasma-emitting Solar star, with no change in sidereal time over ‘endless ages’ is scant to say the least. I can torture maths and models to scream whatever I want, it does not make them valid.

Mathigicians: disproofs of their Black Holes and the Big Bang.

At the heart of Scientism and modern ‘science’ is philosophy. Witness aggressive Relativist and Copernican Saint Edwin of the Hubble as he spits and froths against geocentricity. Burn the heretics he screams!

“…Such a condition (the axis of evil, geocentricity) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs...such a favored position is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.” (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51, 58-59)

There you go. All the ‘science’ you can stuff into your stomach. So, to escape the ‘horror’ of geocentricity and ‘save the phenomena’ you must embrace the myth of a space-time merger and spatial relativity! What nonsense! It is philosophy not science.

Why would geocentricity be such a horror for little thin-armed Edwin? Does it contravene Edwin’s religion? Is it because Eddie knew that his theology was incorrect and had to invent ‘spacetime’, ‘acceleration’ and ‘redshift’ to ‘prove’ endless ages, time and expansion? (Many posts here on why Hubble’s ‘law’ is wrong).

Interesting. The ‘education’ system never teaches the underlying bigotries, ignorance, philosophies and animosities which informs all ‘science’, which is really just Scientism. They just offer up rage-spitters like Hubble or contortionist-confusionists like Einstein as ‘gods’ to worship.

All hail.

James Webb Space Telescope and observational data which refutes the Big Bang.

The Doppler effect does not prove heliocentricity and Redshifting could indicate a young, not an old age.

===

¹The abstract, barely understood formula for this is:

[Rotation or Angular Velocity (Ω); Velocity (V) and a Field (q) (interaction between a velocity vector and some other vector field); Radial Distance (r): r and r2 indicate a relationship with distance from a central point, which is common in fluid dynamics (e.g., in vortex flows or fields)].