Geocentrism is correct.

[Erasmus00]

I think you are on the right track, and If you read my blog you will see that I talk a lot about relativistic interpretations of geocentrism. Still, ultimately, I think relativity was created to escape the reality that earth is in the center of the universe and not moving.

 

If we get rid of general relativity, we get rid of the strong equivalence principle. Without this, there is no reason to attribute the non-inertial effects we see on Earth to anything other then accelerated motion. While there is no absolute velocity, there is acceleration. If we get rid of GR we can no longer assert this acceleration is due to a gravitational field.

 

Now, if we let GR back in, we let the strong equivalence principle back in the door. Now, it is true, we can use the Earth as the center of a coordinate system. However, we can equally well use any other point.

 

Either way, the Earth, it turns out, is not a special place.

-Will

[markjwyatt]

If we get rid of general relativity, we get rid of the strong equivalence principle. Without this, there is no reason to attribute the non-inertial effects we see on Earth to anything other then accelerated motion. While there is no absolute velocity, there is acceleration. If we get rid of GR we can no longer assert this acceleration is due to a gravitational field.

 

Now, if we let GR back in, we let the strong equivalence principle back in the door. Now, it is true, we can use the Earth as the center of a coordinate system. However, we can equally well use any other point.

 

Either way, the Earth, it turns out, is not a special place.

-Will

 

Will:

 

First, we still have Mach's principle, even without general relativity. Also if we imagine a rotating universe filled with a [rotating] Planck level particle aether, which is partially dragged by the earth, we can make sense out of a lot of experiments that have not been answered satsifactorily by general (or Special) relativity, i.e., Sagnac, Fizeau, Michelson-Morley, etc. And we do not have to claim that space is a 4-D hyercube or donut, or that matter shrinks in the direction of motion, etc. We have an absolute reference (i.e., earth and/or aether).

 

A lot of aether theorists claim relativistivc like effects (i.e., frame dragging) as arising from aether mechanics. Still no one has thrown GR out. Regarless of why it was developed, it may still hold some truth (i.e., an interpretation of Mach's principle).

 

Mark Wyatt

[Qfwfq]

Existence of the aether wouldn't strictly be a denial of the principle of relativity, any more than the existence of air (in relation to sound having a propagation velocity). Postulating that Maxwell's fields propagated through some kind of "aether" seemed like the most reasonable thing at the time, to all those who reasoned as Galileo and Newton.

 

Just what, pray tell, would the observations and experiments be, that indicate Earth as being smack dab in the center and/or not moving?

 

If we get rid of general relativity, we get rid of the strong equivalence principle.

Now, dialectically, I disagree that the principle of equivalence requires GR. Even Newton essentially stated it, as corollary VI following his three axioms of motion, albeit not in a differential geometric form. It's only when you use it with differential geometry and Lorentz-covariant dynamics that you get GR.

[Farsight]

The universe does infact revolve about the planet earth. Here's why. In relativity, a body can be said to be at rest, relative to itself. So that the earth is at rest, relative to itself. From the point of view of the Earth, the universe revolves about the earth. This is known as Geocentrism... Comments?

I'm coming to this late in the day, so apologies in advance if this has been said before:

 

Take a Universe containing two planets. You're standing on one of them. You know that one planet is revolving around. But you can't tell which.

 

Now take a Universe containing three planets. You're standing on one of them. You know that two planets are revolving round the other two. And now you can tell which.

 

So Geocentrism is daft. :)

[markjwyatt]

Existence of the aether wouldn't strictly be a denial of the principle of relativity, any more than the existence of air (in relation to sound having a propagation velocity). Postulating that Maxwell's fields propagated through some kind of "aether" seemed like the most reasonable thing at the time, to all those who reasoned as Galileo and Newton.

 

And some people still feel that way today. Of course mainstream science claims to have rejected the notion of ether on one hand. On the other they introduce unseen, undetectable dark matter and energy and claim that it makes up 96% of the universe's mass. They also use it to keep the generality of Newton's gravitational laws. This sounds a bit like an ether to me. On top of that QM is bringing back the ether out of necessity.

 

Just what, pray tell, would the observations and experiments be, that indicate Earth as being smack dab in the center and/or not moving?

 

There are quite a few. Galileo Was Wrong goes into the details and reviews the relevant ones.

 

As for centrality, all the apparent quantization (redshifts, galaxies, b-lacta, gamma ray bursts, etc.) indicate centrality. Then the CMB multipole isotropies are all oriented to earth equatitorial plane.

 

For not moving, the whole Arago, Fizeau, Frensel, Airy, Hoek, Michelson-Morley, Dayton C Miller, etc. story indicates the earth isn not moving (at least not at 30 km/sec. around the sun). These experiments can be tied directly to the development of Einstein's theories. Basically relativity became necassary to reconcile the observations (earth NOT moving and IN the center) with the undemonstrated presuppositions (earth moving and not in the center).

 

Now, dialectically, I disagree that the principle of equivalence requires GR. Even Newton essentially stated it, as corollary VI following his three axioms of motion, albeit not in a differential geometric form. It's only when you use it with differential geometry and Lorentz-covariant dynamics that you get GR.

 

Mach's principle also allows this in a more general way.

 

Mark Wyatt

[CraigD]

The old (ca. 100 AD) idea of geocentrism was foundation by the assumption that extraterrestrial bodies moved in circular (or roughly circular) paths due to reasons other than inertia and gravity – one of the most popular was that they were imbedded in slowly rotating transparent “crystal spheres”.

 

The later (ca. 1543) heliocentrist ideas of Copernicus, didn’t include the idea of gravity. Even the later (ca. 1609), refinement of heliocentrism into the laws of planetary motion by Kepler didn’t. The Kepler’s laws, which describe the planets’ orbits as ellipses, not perfect circles, ruled out the hypothesis that the planets were embedded in crystal spheres, but still failed to account for their motion as a fundamental property of nature. This explanation would not occur until until ca. 1687, with Newton’s ”law of universal gravitation”.

 

One of 2 assertions are necessary to support a hypothesis of geocentricism in the old sense of “Earth is smack dab in the center and/or not moving”:

1. A rejection of universal gravitation, asserting that the motion of the planets is not due to gravitational attraction either by
   • entirely rejecting the existence of gravity,
     
   • asserting that it’s effect decreases more strongly than the 1/r^2 predicted by Newton, so doesn’t effect distant objects such as planets, or
     
   • asserting that extra-terrestrial bodies are not made of matter similar to the earth, and are unaffected by gravity
     

[*]Acceptance of universal gravitation, but an assertion that the Earth is thousands of times more massive than the sun or any of the other planets

None of these assertions are supported by observed data.

 

As a practical example, none of the spacecraft that have been sent to the Moon and the various planets would have reached their intended destinations were a geocentric hypothesis true.

 

The work of theologist Robert Sungenis proposing that geocentrisim is correct, and heliocentrism incorrect, is not based on scientific principles, but on an interpretation of Scripture and the writings of several popes. His inclusion of a discussion of physics in his work appears to be only to show that there is scientific disagreement between old and current theories of planetary motion, in order to make an argument that this disagreement discredits all scientific theories supporting heliocentrism and rejecting geocentrism.

 

In short, Sungenis’s work is not scientific, but theological. Individuals are to be encouraged to explore many ideas, including Sungenis’s, and to reach their own conclusions concerning truth. Many people conclude that theological arguments are superiors to scientific ones, and, as Sungenis has done, base their beliefs about physical reality on such things as a belief in the infallibility of Scripture or the pope. It is disingenuous, however, to assert that such a decision is based on scientific reasoning, or that it is in agreement with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

[markjwyatt]

...

One of 2 assertions are necessary to support a hypothesis of geocentricism in the old sense of “Earth is smack dab in the center and/or not moving”:

1. A rejection of universal gravitation, asserting that the motion of the planets is not due to gravitational attraction either by
   • entirely rejecting the existence of gravity,
     
   • asserting that it’s effect decreases more strongly than the 1/r^2 predicted by Newton, so doesn’t effect distant objects such as planets, or
     
   • asserting that extra-terrestrial bodies are not made of matter similar to the earth, and are unaffected by gravity
     

[*]Acceptance of universal gravitation, but an assertion that the Earth is thousands of times more massive than the sun or any of the other planets

None of these assertions are supported by observed data.

 

Actually this is not true at all. The mechanism being proposed is completely in agreement with all known physical laws.

 

The universe it self is rotating. It is carrying all the objects in the universe with it. It just so happens that earth is in the center of the universe. THe universe acts to stabilize its center of mass (the earth) and does not allow it to translate or rotate. The universe uses its angular power to maintain the center of mass, so being much more massive than the local solar system objects, it [the universe] is capable of overcoming the minute local gravitational attractions of the sun, moon, planets, etc.

 

This mechanism is clearly consistent with choosing a fixed earth as a reference frame in general relativity (in which the rotating cosmic masses will provide the centriigal, gravitational, etc. forces necassary to relaize this configuration). Tihs has been demonsstrated by Thirring, barbour and Berlotti, Bondi and others.

 

It is also consistent with and ether model in which the universal ether rotates.

 

As a practical example, none of the spacecraft that have been sent to the Moon and the various planets would have reached their intended destinations were a geocentric hypothesis true.

 

This is incorrect also. In the geocentric model a modern Tychonic system is used in which all relations between all objects in the universe are exactly the same as in the modern heliocentric. It is simply a coordinate transformation of the center from the sun (or barycenter) to earth. This plus the relative rotational momentum of the universe against the earth makes the systems kinematically and dynamically equivalent for the purposes of space flight. As you should be aware, NASA often uses a geocentric coordinate system to launch probes.

 

The work of theologist Robert Sungenis <link removed by policy> proposing that geocentrisim is correct, and heliocentrism incorrect, is not based on scientific principles, but on an interpretation of Scripture and the writings of several popes. His inclusion of a discussion of physics in his work appears to be only to show that there is scientific disagreement between old and current theories of planetary motion, in order to make an argument that this disagreement discredits all scientific theories supporting heliocentrism and rejecting geocentrism.

 

In short, Sungenis’s work is not scientific, but theological. Individuals are to be encouraged to explore many ideas, including Sungenis’s, and to reach their own conclusions concerning truth. Many people conclude that theological arguments are superiors to scientific ones, and, as Sungenis has done, base their beliefs about physical reality on such things as a belief in the infallibility of Scripture or the pope. It is disingenuous, however, to assert that such a decision is based on scientific reasoning, or that it is in agreement with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

Galileo Was Wrong is a 1000+ page book which deals almost exclusively with the scientific evidence supporting geocentrism. A second volume is in work regarding the ecclesiastical and theological implications.

 

This book is not disingenuous in any manner. It is a detailed scientific argument to support geocentrism mainly from a scientific perspective. It demonstrates that much of what is accepted as science today is a result of scientists trying to reconcile their observations (earth is not moving and in the center) with their undemonstrated presuppositions (the earth is moving around the sun, spinning, and not in the center). It reviews many, many diferent observations and experiments and shows the significance of them to the geocentric perspective.

 

Mark Wyatt

[Qfwfq]

If you say:

The mechanism being proposed is completely in agreement with all known physical laws.

and then:

The universe it self is rotating. It is carrying all the objects in the universe with it. It just so happens that earth is in the center of the universe.

you need to explain the huge accelerations galxies would be undergoing, as well as an alternative for phenomena such as Coriolis.

[Farsight]

I feel very sad that there are some people who actually swallow this antiscience babble, and then feel the need to try and make others swallow it. It's all about people telling other people not to think because they want to tell them what to think.

 

http://dadahead.blogspot.com/2006/03/galileo-was-wrong.html

[Qfwfq]

Entertaining, that!

 

The helicopter agrument just shows lack of understanding. These people certainly did not read Galileo's dialogue, where Salviati dismisses Simplicio's objections by pointing out that the atmosphere rotates with the Earth, so it isn't like being on a vehicle that moves across the ground.

 

Also, Galileo and Copernicus simply show that the description becomes vastly simpler when referred to the Sun. Galileo was by no means anti-religious and explicitly said that, if God had perchance chosen to create Earth at rest, and give all the other bodies complicated motions, exactly as if the Copernican view were true, it would be within his omnipotence but it sure looks more like the heliocentric model.

 

Einstein didn't deny the difference in complexity either, he simply showed that the principle of equivalence (stated by Newton and following from Galileo's work) can be a way of describing gravity and with it, the principle of relativity (stated by Galileo and Newton) is not quite restricted to inertial systems. I wonder if these guys appreciate these subtleties?

[Erasmus00]

Einstein didn't deny the difference in complexity either, he simply showed that the principle of equivalence (stated by Newton and following from Galileo's work) can be a way of describing gravity and with it, the principle of relativity (stated by Galileo and Newton) is not quite restricted to inertial systems. I wonder if these guys appreciate these subtleties?

 

Not only that, but using Einstein still defeats their central idea. Yes, you can put a coordinate system on Earth, such that Earth isn't moving or rotating. But you can do that for literaly any place you like. The Earth still is not special in the way they would want.

-Will

[ughaibu]

It's rather sad that people's lives are so empty that they will resort to these anti-social ideas in order to fabricate a "purpose, a meaning of life." I've no quarrel with anyone holding religious views, but the promotion of religious views, which are personal and mentally internal, as reflective of the reality, shared by all humans, is offensive.

[markjwyatt]

If you say:and then:you need to explain the huge accelerations galxies would be undergoing, as well as an alternative for phenomena such as Coriolis.

 

Galaxies are not undergoing huge accelerations, other than to say their direction is constantly changin (i.e., the are following a circular path arounfd the earth, plus whatever normal rotation they experience.

 

As far as an alternative for the Corliolis force, Thirring as the first to explain this in 1918. This is why Max Born is able to say:

 

Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

 

"...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 Corpenicus are equally right."

 

 

Mark Wyatt

[markjwyatt]

Not only that, but using Einstein still defeats their central idea. Yes, you can put a coordinate system on Earth, such that Earth isn't moving or rotating. But you can do that for literaly any place you like. The Earth still is not special in the way they would want.

-Will

 

No, Einstein through general relativity (and more generally Mach's principle) says that geocentrism is a POSSIBLE universe.

 

Mark Wyatt

[markjwyatt]

It's rather sad that people's lives are so empty that they will resort to these anti-social ideas in order to fabricate a "purpose, a meaning of life." I've no quarrel with anyone holding religious views, but the promotion of religious views, which are personal and mentally internal, as reflective of the reality, shared by all humans, is offensive.

 

 

Don't be so smug as to think you can psycho-analyze everyone.

 

Mark Wyatt

[markjwyatt]

I feel very sad that there are some people who actually swallow this antiscience babble, and then feel the need to try and make others swallow it. It's all about people telling other people not to think because they want to tell them what to think.

 

http://dadahead.blogspot.com/2006/03/galileo-was-wrong.html

 

The article this was based on is stupid to start with (by Dru Sefton):

 

Dru Sefton: Bad Journalism.

 

Mark Wyatt

[markjwyatt]

Take a look at the three part series, Geocentricity 101:

 

Geocentricity 101: A beginner's Course

 

Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles

Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics

Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position

Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position

 

Ans note that this is just a tiny fraction of what is covered in the book Galileo Was Wrong.

 

This is on the topic we are curently disussing. I think you will find especially parts I and II directly relevant to our discussion. Please take a look, I think it will clear up many of the misunderstandings I am seeing here.

 

Mark Wyatt

 

 

 

Mark Wyatt