Geocentrism is correct.

[InfiniteNow]

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

 

Mark Wyatt

Hi Mark,

 

Comments like this might be more appropriate to a PM. We do try to keep threads on topic, and the above is not.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[InfiniteNow]

Wow... all from a catholic blog. I bet there is huge heterogeneity of opinion there. :)

[pgrmdave]

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.

 

 

 

Mark Wyatt

 

Mark, take note of our rules, particularly number 4 - posting links without commenting on what they are about, and explaining why they are relevant is against the rules of our forum and can lead to administrative action, or at the least, deleting the post.

[Erasmus00]

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

 

Mach's principle is not built into Newtonian physics.

 

And General Relativity does not say geocentrism is a possible universe, it suggests (rather generally) that you can put a coordinate system anywhere you like and its equally valid. You can treat the Earth, the Sun, Venus, Alpha centari, as equally valid origins in a coordinate frame.

-Will

[Farsight]

I think this thread is antiscience, and should be locked or removed.

[CraigD]

I think this thread is antiscience, and should be locked or removed.

I agree that “Geocentricity 101”, “Galileo Was Wrong”, and, to the limit of my experience, all of Sungenis’s work is antiscientific.

 

I disagree that this thread should be locked. Rather, let’s use it to document, to the limits of our ingenuity and patience, why such work is scientifically incorrect.

[Qfwfq]

Another option is the Strange Claims Forum.

 

Comments like this might be more appropriate to a PM.

Yes, but I would also say that Ughaibu's post wasn't quite appropriate either.

 

Both of you, please.

[Qfwfq]

Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Yes, it's the principle of relativity extended to rotations. By the same argument, you could sit in a merry-go-round that rotates 10 or more times a minute and say that, no, it's the universe that's rotating all around you, at that rate.

[ughaibu]

Qfwfq: Why would you say that? My post concerned a remark of Sungenis quoted on the page linked to by Popular.

[Farsight]

Can I make all aware of something called "Apologetics".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

 

There are websites that tell the faithful how to present a position and evade challenges to it.

 

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/evolution-main.htm

 

We are not talking science or logic or experiment or reason here. There's no genuine open debate, no rationality. We are talking about dogma, deception, and deceit. Not honesty. I have considerable experience of this on other forums.

[markjwyatt]

Mach's principle is not built into Newtonian physics.

 

I agree, it is rather anti-Newtonian.

 

Thre is a controversy as to how much it is built into general relativity (is this what you meant to say?).

 

And General Relativity does not say geocentrism is a possible universe, it suggests (rather generally) that you can put a coordinate system anywhere you like and its equally valid. You can treat the Earth, the Sun, Venus, Alpha centari, as equally valid origins in a coordinate frame.

-Will

 

Agreed. I never said it proved geocentrism. I just stated that it made geocentrism possible per GR.

 

Mark Wyatt

[markjwyatt]

Can I make all aware of something called "Apologetics".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

 

There are websites that tell the faithful how to present a position and evade challenges to it.

 

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/evolution-main.htm

 

We are not talking science or logic or experiment or reason here. There's no genuine open debate, no rationality. We are talking about dogma, deception, and deceit. Not honesty. I have considerable experience of this on other forums.

 

As though science does not also have apologetics. Please, give me a break.

 

Science also has its dogma, and Copernicism is one of them for sure.

 

What did Edwin Hubble say when he looked through his telescope and saw redshifts distributed equally wherever he looked? Did he say, 'well, gee, Occam's razor says to at least consider the simplest possible explanation, so I must consider that maybe earth is at center'? No, he did not. He said:

 

…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique

position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient

conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be

disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a

last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we

disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored

location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position

is intolerable….Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape.

 

The Observational Approach to Cosmology, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1937, as quoted in Galileo Was Wrong.

 

 

Therefor, even against his common sense, Hubble finally realized that he needed to accept the tenets of general relativity, or consider rejecting Copernicism. Dogma must be maintained in any religion, and scientism is a religion.

 

Hubble refused to consider the evidence that stared him directly in his face. He refused to consider that which was not his presupposition (i.e., earth is not at center).

 

Of course, Hubble did not apply apologetics as you define it (incorrectly I might add), but was perfectly honest. He could not tolerate what the evidence presented so he was willing to accept that the universe was not Euclidian (an assumption then and now) in order not to have to consider the possibility that earth was at center. If you ever decide to read Galileo Was Wrong you will see that this example was repeated by scientist after scientist before Hubble, and after him as they came across evidence of earth at center or not moving, but would not even consider it beacuse it conflicted with the dogma of Copernicism, which was accepted as dogma by the Newton (though overturned by Einstein out of necessity), and never questioned since.

 

Mark Wyatt

[Qfwfq]

My post concerned a remark of Sungenis quoted on the page linked to by Popular.

Perhaps, but didn't say so clearly, was a kind of personal attack and caused Mark's reply about being psychoanalysed.

[Eclogite]

Science also has its dogma, and Copernicism is one of them for sure.

This statement is incorrect.

 

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.

Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith.

Source: Wikipedia -

 

In science established beliefs are dependent upon multiply validated observations supporting a potentially falsifiable hypothesis.

 

The only comparison possible between a religious dogma and an alleged scientific dogma is that they are quite different.

[Farsight]

In all sincerity, I would urge people not to drawn into so-called "debate" on matters such as Geocentrism. It'll be a facade of a debate, not genuine, not honest, full of "straw man" arguments, salted with respectable-sounding buzzwords and names. But points will be ducked instead of answered, and instead there will be diversionary accusations or changes of subject. The entire episode will be slyly devoid of logic, reason, and truth. And after that, it'll time for the Creationism. Because what these guys are trying to tell you is not to use your eyes and your brains, and not to postulate theories or look for evidence or proof. But instead to think and do what they tell you to. Younger forumers, take special care.

[IDMclean]

Popular, I hope that was not placed in my direction. I intended for this thread to be a truthful, careful and informative discussion on the implications of GR and SR, as it relates to Helio-Geocentrism.

 

Mark does have a point however, Science has a dogma or two. Scientific method would be the dogma I would point to. Not to say it's bad or anything, but that in general (from what I have obsevered over the years from a number of people) it is considered near infallible.

 

Now like I said, I wish to make the distinction that both Geocentricism, and Heliocentricism are equally valid. I am not going to support the idea that our little world is at the center where it all began, in part because we lack evidence to support it and because I disagree with Big Bang Theory.

 

If the center of the universe is homogeneous, then that to me suggests evidence toward the theory of a constant universe. One that was, is and will be. Not to say it couldn't make a state change but that it is strictly conservative. No apparent law violations for some beginning. The universe was here far before we ever were and it will be here far after we have left.

 

Also, I would like to remind people, this is a discussion on universal coordinate systems. Not a theological/technocratic discussion of method.

[markjwyatt]

This statement is incorrect.

 

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization to be authoritative and not to be disputed or doubted.

Religious dogmata, properly conceived, reach back to proofs other than themselves, and ultimately to faith.

Source: Wikipedia -

 

In science established beliefs are dependent upon multiply validated observations supporting a potentially falsifiable hypothesis.

 

The only comparison possible between a religious dogma and an alleged scientific dogma is that they are quite different.

 

And what observations can you point to that distinguish geocentrism from other universes?

 

Mark Wyatt