Return to Indexx page>

COPIES OF THE IMPORTANT 1977 ARTICLE BY BARBOUR AND BERTOTTI DEALING WITH MACH'S PRINCIPLE - THAT SUPPORTS GEOCENTRICITY!

FULL TITLE OF ARTICLE -“Gravity and Inertia in a Machian Framework” J.B. Barbour and B. Bertotti. Il Nuovo Cimento, 32B(1):1-27, 11 March 1977.
This article uses Mach's Principle - that the huge mass of the stars has a direct effect upon all the heavenly bodies in the universe, and particularly, this earth and the planetary system.
The authors mathematically examined a stationary solid body (the Earth) surrounded by a dense solid rotating sphere (the stars). They found -
(a) it produced the Coriolis forces, the equatorial bulge of the Earth, and the dragging of a pendulum. These are all claimed to be "proofs" that the earth is spinning in the heliocentric model. But they are actually produced by the daily rotation of the stars around the Earth.
(b) it explained the precession of the perihelions of the planets,
(c) that the diameter of the universe is changing at the speed of light. They were surprised by this because "Nowhere has light entered into our considerations”!
(d) These forces are real forces of gravitational attraction, and NOT a hypothetical "centrifugal force".
ALL these results fully support the geocentric model of the universe - i.e. the Earth is stationary and at the centre of the revolving mass of the aether which is carrying the stars and planets etc. around the earth once each day.
I could not find a copy of this article on the internet for examination by the public. I searched for "Barbour" and found a list of 23 of his articles which included this one.
EVERY article could be downloaded except this article (and one other)!
I am convinced that it has been deliberately blocked because -
(i) it uses Mach's Principle of the huge effect that the mass of the stars has in controlling the movements of planets, including the precession of their perihelion, and demonstrates that it generates ALL the forces (Coriolis, equatorial bulge, pendulum drag, etc.) said to "prove" heliocentrism.
(ii) It is clearly critical of Relativity and says that it is not necessary to use it to get the cosmological results that they do.
(iii) They say "Einstein may have unwittingly [MB-“unwittingly”?] smuggled into general relativity integrated properties of the Universe, which then, of course, show up in planetary dynamics.” This is surely a direct criticism of Einstein's integrity!

To ignore Relativity and accuse Einstein of "smuggling" factors he was "proving" into his theory is more than enough to get this paper blocked!!!

The impact of Relativity on science is to corrupt it. Now mathematicians instruct observing astronomers to look for evidence to support their proposals (Big Bang, black holes, missing mass, etc.)

COMMENT ADDED 19 July 2014. I have received very heavy criticisms from some heliocentrists for publishing this paper and claiming that it supports geocentrism and that it is "blocked" from publication. They pointed out that it is available from Springer - for £20!
Their accusations culminated in their claim that "The only words that can succinctly sum up Malcolm Bowden - as evidenced by his own behaviour - are: Liar, hypocrit, projectionist, paranoid delusionist AND petulant child.”. Being of a senstive and insecure nature, this deeply wounded me, and I cried myself to sleep for many nights!!! You can read their lengthy correspondence and my replies in the "Comments" under my YouTube video "Bowden replies to Cool Hard Logic".
In the midst of all this scathing barrage of unremitting ridicule and dismissal of all my replies, a supporter sent me a link to a 2013 article by a secular scientist, Popov, that said exactly the same things as found in Barbour and Bertotti's article. Click on Popov's article>

There are 15 pages. To print out each page - put cursor on page; RIGHT click; then there are two ways -
(i) click "print picture" - should print OK.
(ii) click on "copy"; then paste to a drawing package and then print out.

-----------------

page 88

page 89

page 90

page 91

page 92

page 93

page 94

page 95

page 96

page 97

page 98

page 99

page 100

page 101

page 102

Popov's article

Return to Indexx page