It has been shown elsewhere on this site that geostatic and acentric cosmologies are not dynamically equivalent. That they are geometrically equivalent may be true, but physically they are very different systems. It follows that the best way to disprove one of them is by a comparison of some consequence of their respective dynamics.
The alleged rotation of the World, although never having been conclusively demonstrated, is simply taken as read by modern science. However, the World either rotates about an axis or it doesn't. There is no alternative scenario. A spinning World does not rule out a geocentric universe, only a geostationary one. On the other hand, if the World can be shown not to spin, then the heavens have to be centred on, and revolve diurnally about, an immovable World.
If the claims of the American government agency, NASA, regarding having successfully landed men on the Moon, for instance, are to be believed, then the issue is already settled, for the World must rotate around the north-south polar axis from west to east for this feat to have been achieved in the manner claimed. Again, this is inescapable from the dynamics that would be involved (there is a Guided Tour talk on this issue in Geocentric Universe 3.0 ).
Let us ignore NASA for the moment and examine another area in which undeniable differences would exist between the dynamics of the geostatic and acentric models — atmospheric physics — for whatever the World is doing, rotating or not rotating, its atmosphere has to be doing the same thing and at very nearly the same rate (otherwise what we currently call a hurricane would appear like a light breeze compared to the winds to be experienced as a result of one component of the system rotating and the other remaining stationary).
Now and again, no matter where we are situated on the globe, we will experience a still, calm day. Flags hanging limply, clouds hardly moving, no rustle of the leaves on the trees, and so on.
In between this and the next such calm day, the weather can have been really wild and extreme. Yet if we were to consider only the two tranquil days at either end of the storm, it would be as if nothing had happened.
Whatever dictated the dynamics of the World's atmosphere on the first calm day must have been likewise influential on the second. This fact needs to be examined under each scenario.
Acentric (rotating World) Model
Consider an air molecule in our atmosphere which, on the second calm day, is situated within a local atmospheric envelope that is rotating with the World. In other words, this molecule must be maintaining approximately the same velocity as that of its associated point on the ground.
Figure 1: In a rotating atmosphere, an air molecule has to be forced to move from s1 to s2, even on a calm day, by some hitherto unknown vector field.
Let the position of the air molecule be s1 (see Fig. 1) and its altitude be h, then the coordinates of s1 are
x1 = (R + h) cos ø cos a
y1 = (R + h) cos ø sin a
z = (R + h) sin ø,
where R is the mean radius of the World, ø is the latitude of the point on the World's surface directly under the air molecule and a is its longitude.
The molecule must have a velocity, the modulus of which will be
|v| = 0.262516 (R + h) cos ø per mean solar hour,
taking the sidereal day as 23h 56m 4.091s mean solar time (Smart, 1977), and the direction of which must be so as to ensure that the molecule goes from s1 to s2. Hence,
v = f (R, h, a, ø).
This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v| by being directly proportional to latitude and longitude. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World). This is not the force of gravity, for that always acts towards the centre of the earth mass, and not in the direction of alleged rotation.
Clearly such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.
This is also true if we accept for a moment the conventional physics explanation, that the atmosphere is governed by the 'law' of conservation of angular momentum. This would still produce the same effect, namely the tendency to drag everyone and everything in an easterly direction.
Geostatic (non-moving World) Model
Here the World does not move, so our molecule does not go from s1 to s2 but rather stays at s1. In order to achieve this objective we explicitly require there to be no force in this case.
Since there would be no field acting upon the air molecule, there would likewise be no force acting on us. This agrees with everyday experience.
Necessary characteristics of any Restoring Force
A comparison with the force of gravity is perhaps helpful.
The field of gravity is such that its strength at a point, s1, within the atmosphere is inversely proportional to (R + h)2. Such rapid decrease in field strength with altitude helps to ensure that our atmosphere is not compacted into a thin layer at sea level. In contrast, the strength of the supposed new field would be directly proportional to (R + h) and thus increase with altitude.
The existence of a gravitational field is undeniable, since we all do work against its strength every day. Walking, running, jumping and so on all involve our muscles doing work against gravity (a force that pushes or pulls us back down onto the surface of the World). Our muscles pushing against a restoring field would experience resistence which would vary with the direction of motion, with latitude and with altitude. Experimental determination of the field strength of the hypothetical restoring force would enable the associated constant of proportionality to be found (just as the gravitational constant, G, was worked out).
The World either rotates or it doesn't.
If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.
If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).
Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.
Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geostationary, or else geobounded.
(For a further discussion on the conservation of momentum, see the Laws of Physics page on this site.)
AcknowledgementThe ideas, questions and efforts of Gary Shelton were an initial source of motivation for this work.
- Smart, W.M., 1977, "Textbook on Spherical Astronomy," sixth ed., revised by R.M. Green, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.