The standard textbook list of ‘proofs’ for heliocentricity usually include this list:

1.     Newton’s theory of gravitational attraction (this is false)

2.     The Stellar Parallax (is a false claim)

3.     Stellar aberration of the Sun (ibid)

4.     The Foucault Pendulum (proves nothing)

5.     The bulge at the Equator (this post)

6.     Geosynchronous satellites (this post)

7.     Space probe measurements (this post)

8.     Retrograde motion (this post)

9.     Star-streaming

10.  The Doppler effect

11.  Geometric complexity of geocentrism

Prologue

Previous posts have looked at the paucity of real evidence for heliocentricity.  Remarkably these failures in experimentation or evidence, are always turned into ‘proofs’ by ‘The Science’.  Other models which can explain the same phenomena are dismissed out of hand due to the philosophical-world or universe-view that heliocentricity ‘must be right’.  The reality is that there is not a single mechanical proof to support Copernicanism.  This post will look at 4 textbook proffered ‘proofs’, namely, the bulge at the equator, geo-synchronous satellites, space probes, and retrograde motions. 

# 5 The Chubby Earth

Like your average middle-aged man, the Earth has a noticeable bulge around its waist.  Arthur Eddington, the English Quaker, who did more than anyone else to make Einstein a world-wide celebrity, discussed two possible causes for this phenomenon:

 

“The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating” (Eddington p. 24)

‘The Science’ has no quibble with Eddington’s explanation from a century ago. 

The above means that the Earth will be subjected to both centrifugal gravitational pulls, and centripetal Coriolis forces, when it is rotating in a fixed universe (Copernican); or if the universe is rotating around a fixed Earth. (Tychonic, geo-centric).  These two forces create the ‘oblation’ of the Earth, regardless of the model in question.  These forces are what induce a flattening at the poles, and the paunch around the stomach or equator.  It has nothing to do with either a spinning Earth, or a mobile Earth.

Such an explanation is similar to that of the Foucault pendulum, another non-proof of heliocentricity which ignores centripetal forces and the Coriolis force.  Given that other models can easily explain the Earth’s oblation and bulge at the equator, this cannot be considered proof of anything.  In fact, the Tychonic model with its emphasis on the Coriolis force and the Euler force, is likely a more elegant and reasonable explanation than that offered by Copernicans (source, Britannica 3). 

# 6 Geosynchronous Satellites

A geosynchronous satellite is usually defined as:

 

“…an orbital period the same as the Earth’s rotation period. Such a satellite returns to the same position in the sky after each sidereal day, and over the course of a day traces out a path in the sky that is typically some form of analemma. A special case of geosynchronous satellite is the geostationary satellite, which has a geostationary orbit – a circular geosynchronous orbit directly above the Earth's equator. Another type of geosynchronous orbit used by satellites is the Tundra elliptical orbit.”

Does an object orbiting a complete cycle within a sidereal day (star time, 23 hours 56 minutes, 4 seconds), really prove heliocentricity?

Balancing act

 

At about 22,242 miles from our planet’s surface there is a balance of forces between gravity, the inertial forces of the Earth, the Sun, the Moon, and the stars. At this altitude the satellite will be in a geostationary orbit, remaining indefinitely in the same position in space. In the heliocentric view, the satellite needs enough speed to keep up with Earth’s rotation.

In the Copernican vision, given that the Earth rotates on its axis at 1054 mph at its equator, the geosynchronous satellite must be given a velocity of about 7000 mph in the west-to-east direction to keep up with Earthly rotation.  Since space is virtually frictionless, the 7000-mph speed will be maintained mainly by the satellite’s inertia, with additional thrusts interspersed as needed to account for anomalies.  If the satellite keeps the 7000 mph, it will remain at 22,242 miles above the planet and not be pulled down by the Earth’s gravity.  

This follows the Newtonian model in which the inertia of the geosynchronous satellite causes it to move in a straight line, or its inertial path, but the Earth’s gravity seeks to pull it toward Earth. The result is that the satellite will move with the Earth in a circular path.

In the Tychonic-geocentric version, the Earth and the satellite are stationary while the universe, at the altitude of 22,242 miles, is rotating at 7000 mph east-to-west.  Identical to the heliocentric version, the satellite must be given a velocity of 7000 mph (west-to-east) to move against the 7000-mph velocity of the rotating space (east-to-west).  The combination of the universe’s centripetal force (centrifugal plus Coriolis) against the satellite’s speed of 7000 mph, along with the Earth’s gravity on the satellite, will keep the satellite hovering above one spot on the fixed Earth (source Britannica 3).

Stationary

The satellite’s altitude above the Earth will determine the velocity needed to keep the satellite at this chosen altitude. Due to the pull of gravity, the closer the satellite is to Earth the faster it must move to counteract gravity and maintain its altitude.  

The heliocentric system explains this phenomenon by viewing the Earth as rotating with a 24-hour period, while the geostationary satellite remains motionless in space. Newton’s law of gravitation provides a mathematical framework to explain the locus of the balance. In the Copernican model therefore, at a specific location on Earth right over the equator, one will see the satellite directly overhead at one specific time during the day.  

In the geocentric system, however, the Earth is not rotating; rather, the whole of space is rotating around the Earth, which carries the satellite with it (Wikipedia, geocentrism entry).  In this case we might call it a stellar-stationary satellite instead of a geostationary satellite.  For some, this is a puzzling phenomenon since it appears that the satellite should just fall to Earth, but this can be explained in both the heliocentric and geocentric systems.  More