Geocentrism

Despite that, I am still going to make some clarifications on my previous arguments. I believe that there are some things I should point out. The experiments I mentioned do account as evidence of the speed of light, as much as the thought experiments in the articles do. Indeed, this contradicts the result of the Wang experiment, but I already linked you to an article that elaborates on how the Wang and Sagnac experiments can go along with relativity. The claim that the frame of reference was not inertial was an additional argument. I will have to admit, though, that I am still looking into it, and I recognise the Wang experiment as a bold argument against my claims. Indeed, Einstein admitted that. But he also said that Gerber's theory of gravity was wrong, as proven later by other physicists. It was all mentioned in the Wikipedia article you linked as your source. "Basic concept Based on the electrodynamic laws of Wilhelm Eduard Weber, Carl Friedrich Gau", and Bernhard Riemann, between 1870-1900 many scientists tried to combine gravitation with a finite propagation speed and tried to derive the correct value for the Perihelion shift of Mercury's orbit. In 1890 Maurice L"vy succeeded in doing so by combining the laws of Weber and Riemann, whereby the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light in his theory. However, because the basic laws of Weber and others were wrong (for example, Weber's law was superseded by Maxwell's equations), those hypotheses were rejected. A variation of those superseded theories (albeit not directly based on Weber's theory) was the one of Gerber, which he developed in 1898 and 1902. So Gerber was able to calculate a speed of gravity of ca. 305 000 km/s, slightly more than the speed of light. Controversy It was noted by the Einstein- and relativity critic Ernst Gehrcke in 1916, that this formula is mathematically identical to Albert Einstein's formula (1915) for general relativity. So Gehrcke initiated a reprint of Gerber's 1902-paper in the Annalen der Physik in 1917, where he questioned the priority of Einstein and tried to prove a possible Plagiarism by him. However, according to Albrecht F"lsing, Klaus Hentschel and Roseveare, those claims were rejected, because soon after Gerber's paper was reprinted, scientists like Hugo von Seeliger, Max von Laue published some papers, where it was claimed that Gerber's theory is inconsistent and his formula is not the consequence of his premises. And Einstein wrote in 1920:[A 8] "Mr. Gehrcke wants to make us believe that the Perihelion shift of Mercury can be explained without the theory of relativity. So there are two possibilities. Either you invent special interplanetary masses. [. .. ] Or you rely on a work by Gerber, who already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of Mercury before me. The experts are not only in agreement that Gerber"s derivation is wrong through and through, but the formula cannot be obtained as a consequence of the main assumption made by Gerber. Mr. Gerber"s work is therefore completely useless, an unsuccessful and erroneous theoretical attempt. I maintain that the theory of general relativity has provided the first real explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury. I did not mention the work by Gerber initially, because I did not know about it when I wrote my work on the perihelion motion of Mercury; even if I had been aware of it, I would not have had any reason to mention it. " In the recent past, Roseveare argued that Gerber's derivation is unclear, however, he claimed to have found the way by which Gerber possibly found his result (although Roseveare's derivation was criticized as well). More importantly, Roseveare showed that Gerber's theory is in conflict with experience: the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun is too high in Gerber's theory, and if the relativistic mass is considered, also Gerber's prediction for the perihelion advance is wrong. " For the equations, see the Wikipedia article. Not to mention that I linked you to more than one experiments that prove general relativity. As I told you, saying that the universe rotates is the same as saying that the earth spins. Until one frame of reference is proven to be more right than the other, both claims are equally right. Hence, one can correctly claim that the earth spins. To reach a conclusion, on behalf of both of us, I will end my arguments with the following. Arguments in favour of: Pro. a. The Michelson-Morley experiment, necessarily supported by b. The Wang experiment, contradicting (or disproving? ) relativity, c. The theoretical rotation of the universe Con. a. An unexplainable force is needed for the Geocentric model to be true, b. Experiments and thought experiments that support relativity and a possible interpretation of the Wang experiment (see the article), c. The theoretical spinning of the earth If you notice something wrong with the above or disagree, please mention it in the comments. To the voter: Before you cast your vote, be sure to check the rest of this debate. This is important for the voting being objective. That aside, please share your views on this debate and state the factors that lead you to that decision. Thank you. 🌎