This is a false conclusion. The Coriolis effect used in long distance shooting and artillery only proves that centrifugal force acts on a projectile (or any object for that matter) when it is freed from the Earth's gravity. A rotating Earth would produce the effect as well as a rotating universe. Because both are possible, it is not proof of one or the other.

JoeZ

The bullet isn't freed from Earth's gravity; if it was, it would go into orbit about the Earth, or even more so, escape from the Earth altogether.

The bullet isn't freed from earth's gravity, but it is freed from the confines of the gun barrel, or indirect contact with the earth's surface.  Therefore, it is set free to act in response to the wind currents it encounters, and according to its own inertia --which can be thought of as a sum of its muzzle velocity plus the mysterious interaction between it and the universe beyond our atmosphere.

The same phenomenon applies to Foucault's pendulum.  If you go to any of the public displays at museums and observatories in the world where docents speak to tourists about the theory behind the apparatus' operation, they tell you that the cyclical rotation of the pendulum's swing is due to the rotation of the earth.  They don't wait for you to ask how the stars in the sky have an effect on the pendulum.  They pronounce that the pendulum is showing us that the rotation of the earth WITH RESPECT to the depths of outer space (with all its galaxies and stars, including our own sun) causes the pendulum to move in this way, and therefore, this proves the earth rotates on its axis!  :tinfoil:  

But every tourist who asks one question never gets an intelligible answer.  What question is this?  The question goes as follows:

Question they can't answer:  "But how does the pendulum 'know' that there is relative motion between the stars and the earth?"

It's actually a lot of fun to see how different docents cope with this querry from the audience.  You get quite a show of hedging and humming and hawing.  Sometimes they suddenly remember they have a pressing appointment and run away.

They can't answer this because, A) they don't want to mention the word "ether," and B) if they try to answer this, it is easy to then ask what is the difference between the earth rotating while the stars remain relatively still, and alternatively, the earth being relatively still while the stars do the rotating?   Not even Einstein has any solution to this quagmire, and there has been exactly no progress in astrophysics since his time in this matter.

.

You act like there is no testable difference between a geocentric and heliocentric model of the Universe, and that is all just a matter of "faith".  But, such a view is preposterous.  Consider the following:



Now, if the Earth were stationary and the Sun was, instead, moving around the Earth, as you say, then the shadow of the Earth would also be moving (indeed, the shadow of the Earth would trace out a 360 degree circle each and every day), whereas, in a heliocentric model, the shadow of the Earth would be largely stationary, as the Earth is itself the one rotating.  Problem with the former (geocentric) view is that it does not predict the timings of Iridium flashes (nor, lunar eclipses):

http://www.satobs.org/iridium.html#programs

Instead, this is what occurs:

Wow, I am impressed, you have just PROVED all the science of relativity was a waste of time, that Mach and Einstein spent their scientific lives believing there is no difference between a moving earth order or a moving sun order. You will definitely get next year's Nobel and Templeton prizes worth 2,000,000 dollars if you go public with your extraordinary find. Imagine, hundreds of years and nobody noticed there is a difference between a H eclipse and a G eclipse. Oh, I want my commissiomn for telling you this.

Wow, I am impressed, you have just PROVED all the science of relativity was a waste of time, that Mach and Einstein spent their scientific lives believing there is no difference between a moving earth order or a moving sun order. You will definitely get next year's Nobel and Templeton prizes worth 2,000,000 dollars if you go public with your extraordinary find. Imagine, hundreds of years and nobody noticed there is a difference between a H eclipse and a G eclipse. Oh, I want my commissiomn for telling you this.

Einstein was wrong; for starters, he did not believe this, and secondly, he was a theoretical physicist and not an astronomer.  All that you have is some obscure quote from 1938 which suggested that a "frame of reference" could, perhaps, be developed whereby a geocentric and heliocentric model of the Solar System would be equivalent.  No observational astronomer ever bought into this idea, and again, it is impossible to explain the observations of lunar eclipses with a geocentric model of the Solar System.   Just ask any astronomer.

Instead, this is what occurs:

This cannot be right. Where is the Orbit of the Sun?

Quote from: Guest

Quote from: Guest

Wow, I am impressed, you have just PROVED all the science of relativity was a waste of time, that Mach and Einstein spent their scientific lives believing there is no difference between a moving earth order or a moving sun order. You will definitely get next year's Nobel and Templeton prizes worth 2,000,000 dollars if you go public with your extraordinary find. Imagine, hundreds of years and nobody noticed there is a difference between a H eclipse and a G eclipse. Oh, I want my commissiomn for telling you this.

Einstein was wrong; for starters, he did not believe this, and secondly, he was a theoretical physicist and not an astronomer.  All that you have is some obscure quote from 1938 which suggested that a "frame of reference" could, perhaps, be developed whereby a geocentric and heliocentric model of the Solar System would be equivalent.  No observational astronomer ever bought into this idea, and again, it is impossible to explain the observations of lunar eclipses with a geocentric model of the Solar System.   Just ask any astronomer.

‘But in the end of 19th century, the famous physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach (1839-1916) came with the principle which states the equivalence of non-inertial frames. Using the famous “Newton’s bucket” argument, Mach argues that all so-called pseudo-forces (forces which result from accelerated motion of the reference frame) are in fact real forces originating from the accelerated motion of distant masses in the Universe, as observed by the observer in the non-inertial frame. Some go even further, stating that “every single physical property and behavioral aspect of isolated systems is determined by the whole Universe.” According to Mach’s principle, the Earth could be considered as the “pivot point” of the Universe: the fact that the Universe is orbiting around the Earth will create the exact same forces that we usually ascribe to the motion of the Earth…. The only question remains: are these forces by themselves enough to explain all translational motions that we observe from earth and can they reproduce the Tycho Brahe’s model? The discussion in this paper will show that the answer to this question is positive.’  --- Luka Popov: paper ‘Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions’ submitted to University of Zagreb, 2013.  

Yeah, and Mach has been dead now for how long?  (Answer:  100 years.)  James Clarke Maxwell inferred, from his now-four equations on Electricity & Magnetism (E & M), that no physical object could go faster than the speed of light (which Poincare & Einstein later proved), and yet, that is the cosmology that you propose, that all of the stars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters are all going around the Earth at speeds vastly, vastly exceeding those of the speed of light.

For the record, Bob Sungenis holds to the Tycho Brahe model of the Solar System and not that of Ptolemy:

http://galileowaswrong.com/interview-request-from-der-spiegel-in-germany-on-geocentrism/

He accepts the phenomenon of stellar parallax.  What he cannot explain is the phenomenon of Galactic parallax, that is, the Solar System's revolution about the center of the Galaxy:

http://www.carbonar.es/s33/Articles/Galactic-centre.pdf