“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Copernicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
To say I have not supplied anything to support the geocentric model is to be profoundly dishonest. That should be obvious even to you.
" I simply ask you to back up, with quotes, and/or peer review literature; Einstein making ANY claims about the ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ moving the Sun around the Earth. When I make fun of your ludicrous ‘gravity of the rest of the universe’ model, and you say your model is “according to Einstein” you lie blatantly."
To insist that Einstein make the quote when it is the combined quotes of Einstein, Born, Hoyle and Ellis that are important is to display profound dishonesty yet again. That should be obvious even to you.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.
Again, I am not contesting that the two models are not equivalent as a COORDINATE SYSTEM, but one model is possible and predictable under the GRAVITY SYSTEM, and the other is absolutely moronic and impossible.
When you say “according to Einstein” you lie. When you regurgitate your CS talking points ad nauseum, you simply avoid the issue of backing up your claim that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”, no it is only according to an idiot on the interweb who is incapable of backing up his moronic model other than to lie about who supports it.