For this analysis, I will define Physical Geocentrism as a system which claims that the Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) makes the Earth a fixed, motionless frame of reference. This seems to be consistent with the claims Mr. DeLano makes in his earlier comments and below.
Just how well tested is relativity?
DeLano: "We are only now beginning to be in a position to determine whether the behavior of “c“ is as predicted in non-Earth reference frames."False.
We've pretty much had the capability since space flight - and especially interplanetary flight. We've been able to measure newer predicted relativistic effects since the 1960s, such as the Shapiro Delay (Wikipedia)
In addition, there are currently at least two satellite instruments flying in space, moving relative to the Earth, AND to the object they're imaging, where the optical configuration used is similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment. The system is used for precision Doppler velocity measurement. They use 'c' for the velocity of light when removing Doppler effects from the spacecraft velocity relative to the target.
As high-bandwidth transmissions become common in space, we will have to include the relativistic effects there as well to keep precise timing. Physics Today: Time dilation seen at just 10 m/s.
But Doesn't GPS Use Geocentric Coordinates?
The GPS system uses several different coordinate systems, including an inertial system with an orientation fixed to the distant stars. Computations transform to a geocentric system when needed to compute locations physically on the Earth. For more details and references, see Scott Rebuttal. I. GPS and Relativity.
DeLano: "The early evidence is shockingly unsupportive of Relativity (JPL time correction built into GPS software, for example, which renders “c“ constant in only one frame. Hint: it ain't the solar system barycenter)."That can only be a credible statement to an audience that knows NOTHING about relativity.
According to relativity, provided you do ALL your calculations in a given frame, you can always use 'c' as the speed of light in that frame.
That is what frame-independence of the speed of light MEANS.
If you transition between reference frames you must do the appropriate relativistic transformation and then do all your calculations based on measurements in THAT frame. Then you can use 'c' in that frame as well.
If You Want to Know About GPS, Read the Spec!
But here is the real killer for the claim of no relativistic effects in the GPS system. Back during the system's development, the contention over the reality of relativistic effects was so severe, a frequency synthesizer was installed to alter the system clock frequency to the relativistically-corrected value - just in case. Neil Ashby describes how the required clock synchronization could not be achieved until the corrected synthesizer was turned on (see General Relativity in the Global Positioning System by Neil Ashby). A copy of the original paper, from 1978, describing the launch and initial testing of the first GPS satellite, is available online: INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE.
Today, the relativistic correction is described in the GPS specifications. It's available at the Navigation Center of the U.S. Coast Guard, under GPS References, see Interface Specification (IS-GPS-200E, 8 June 2010). The relativistic corrections are described in Sections 126.96.36.199 and 188.8.131.52.3. (Note that the USCG site layout has changed so these links are different than the earlier article.)
So I ask the question, could Physical Geocentrists have built a working GPS system?
But the implications of an absolute reference frame like Physical Geocentrism requires goes far beyond what is covered here.
Coming Soon: More technology implications (more things that would NOT work if Physical Geocentrism were valid) AND APPLICATIONS (what WOULD work if Physical Geocentrism were valid) of Physical Geocentrism!