I don’t see how you can explain this motion in a geocentric world. I say these satellites are simply orbiting in synch with the rotation of the earth. But you have to say that they’re actually “levitating” above the earth. When I asked you what causes these multi-ton satellites to “levitate” above the surface of the earth, you pointed to the Lense-Thirring effect. But I don’t think that’s an adequate answer, for several reasons:

First, the Lense-Thirring effect is part and parcel of Einstein’s General Relativity theory, which you claim is “an absolute farce.” According to a paper called “General Relativistic Frame Dragging” at the Duke University Physics Department website, “Einstein’s theory of general relativity has been highly successful at explaining how matter and light behave in strong gravitational fields, and has been successfully tested using a wide variety of astrophysical observations. The frame-dragging effect was first derived using general relativity by Austrian physicists Joseph Lense and Hans Thirring in 1918.” If the Lense-Thirring effect is a relativistic effect derived from Einstein’s Relativity equations then it’s off-limits to you as long as you continue to claim that Relativity is “an absolute farce.” You can’t depend on Einstein’s theories only when it’s convenient for you to do so, and reject them otherwise.

Second, frame-dragging can’t account for the motion of the satellites I showed you. According to the paper from Duke:

General relativity predicts that massive rotating objects should drag space-time around themselves as they rotate,” said [Dr. Erricos] Pavlis. “Frame dragging is like what happens if a bowling ball spins in a thick fluid such as molasses. As the ball spins, it pulls the molasses around itself. Anything stuck in the molasses will also move around the ball. Similarly, as the Earth rotates, it pulls space-time in its vicinity around itself. This will shift the orbits of satellites near the Earth.

In your geocentric world, you of course flip this around and claim that the earth is stationary and that a massive, rotating shell of stars drags things along with it. But the stars rotate toward the west, and although some of the geosynchronous satellites do move toward the west (e.g., Brasilsat 1, Express 1), others are stationary (e.g., Echostar1, Galaxy 5), and still others move toward the east (e.g., Intelsat 604, Raduga 31), which is against the force that supposedly holds them up. If the stars did exert a frame-dragging effect on these satellites, the effect would be uniform. In fact, you yourself said, ”[W]e would expect them to go toward one direction, since the rotation of stars around them is always the same.” I guess you didn’t know that they don’t all move in the same direction. Therefore, your explanation can’t account for the very different motion we see from these satellites.

Third, the Lense-Thirring effect apparently isn’t all that strong. Again, according to the paper from Duke: “We found that the plane of the orbits of LAGEOS I and II were shifted about six feet (two meters) per year in the direction of the Earth’s rotation.” That’s six feet per year. I don’t see how such a subtle effect could cause the extreme range of motion we see every day from the geosynchronous satellites.

Fourth, if the Lense-Thirring effect exerts a force strong enough to spin hurricanes and levitate four-ton satellites, why doesn’t it induce the earth to rotate toward the west?

The bottom line is that even if it weren’t hypocritical of you to rely on General Relativity to explain why geosynchronous satellites supposedly levitate, you still haven’t shown or explained how this effect can account for the actual motion of the actual satellites I’ve entered into evidence.

Next, when I asked you what force causes a satellite like Marisat 3 to move in a figure-eight while Inmarsat 3-F2 holds still and Brasilsat 1 moves in a westward zigzag, you claimed that these satellites must be oscillating at an equilibrium point between the earth and the stars in a way that’s analogous to an object levitating in a magnetic field. But there are several problems with this explanation.

First, you haven’t shown that the earth and the stars exert a force on a satellite that is analogous to a magnetic force and that would cause it to levitate. Magnetic levitation only works if the magnet is pushing the levitated object away from it. But you deny that the earth repels satellites. Therefore, your magnet analogy isn’t analogous to the situation we’re considering.

Second, if the earth and the stars are both pulling on the geosynchronous satellites, it would be theoretically possible to place a satellite at the point of equilibrium between those two forces, but that equilibrium point would be extremely unstable. After a few days the satellite would drift away from the equilibrium position. It would be possible, of course, to keep it in position using station-keeping maneuvers (which is how NASA keeps the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory Satellite (SOHO) in position at the unstable Lagrange point L1 between the earth and the sun. But as soon as the satellite ran out of fuel, it would quickly drift away from the equilibrium position and accelerate toward either the earth or the stars. But Gorizont 20, for example, has been out of service since February, 1999, and yet it still “levitates” above the earth. Also, the Cosmos 2345 satellite moves toward and away from the earth 1,378 km every day. Obviously, that’s not possible if the satellite is supposedly levitating in an equilibrium position between the earth and the stars.

Third, some of the geosynchronous satellites oscillate considerable distances in the north-south direction relative to the earth. LES 9, for example, moves 34,720 km every day in a giant figure-eight: