Geocentrism is correct.

[Qfwfq]

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

None.

 

And Heliocentrism is also not an established fact. What is established is that it makes more sense to adopt the c. m. of the solar system as a reference for motion of bodies in the solar system, which includes the c. m. of the Earth-Moon pair, about which each of these orbit. For the motion of distant stars, it clearly doesn't make as much sense to adopt the same refernce, the most appropriate for a star's motion is the c. m. of its galaxy.

 

All this is, at least, what's better for one who wants to make calculations of the dynamics. If you don't find it too complicated, you can choose whatever coordinate system you please, as long as you get the dynamics right for that system... :beer:

[Eclogite]

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

Excuse the delayed reply.

 

I point to no observations. I was challenging your contention that science contained dogmas.

[Boerseun]

Mark does have a point however, Science has a dogma or two. Scientific method would be the dogma I would point to.

A methodology isn't a dogma.

 

A methodology would describe how to go about in order to achieve a desired result. For instance, the methodology in building a house would be the creation of the foundation, mixing cement, laying bricks, etc., all of these steps in order to achieve the result, a well-built house.

 

A dogma would present you with the house, and tell you that it's there because it's there.

 

As far as geocentrism goes, any and every point in the universe has the exact same claim to being the center of the universe, simply because space have expanded in all directions from a time when all points in space was indeed at the same 'place'.

 

We can't, however, say that the Earth is the center of the universe, because the Earth has a known velocity around the sun. The point where the Earth is now, could be the center, but from our perspective, that point would go flying off at a hell of a speed due to our known velocity around the sun. So is the sun it? Once again, no. The sun has a known velocity around the galactic core. So, is the galactic core it? Once again, no. Our galaxy also has a known velocity around the center of mass of the local group. And so on, and so forth. And galaxies are all parts of local groups, bigger groups, groups of local groups, etc, until we're talking about the universe itself. So, then the question becomes "So is the center of the universe it?" And the answer must be "Yes, the Center of the Universe is indeed the Center of the Universe! Look, everything is flying away from that one spot!"

 

But then the clincher: The universe is flying apart from every spot! The Hubble redshift is the same no matter where you place your telescope. In other words, every single spot in the universe is the exact center of the universe, slap-bang right in the middle of it! :)

[IDMclean]

What I ment by scientific method being part of a possible scientific dogma is that it is often treated with an authoritive stance. It is better backed and has faired well, but it is not the be all end all of methodologies, though often enough it is treated as the ultimate methodology by those who would scorn other methods and call themselves scientists.

 

Now, as for the everypoint being center, well. That was the point of this thread.

 

Note: I hadn't thought of the difficulty of finding material regarding my meaning of a "hypersphere" universe. What I mean when I write that is a Sphere, which when viewed from "outside" would have a finite geometry, but when view from "inside" would have an infinite diameter.

[IDMclean]

This thread was so silly. :(

[gopalan]

Re: "Geocentrism is correct.

The universe does infact revolve about the planet earth. Here's why."

 

The whole thing is ABSURD!

Over n Out!

[Buffy]

Well, with Strange Claims we aim to entertain... :Glasses:

 

The rain in Spain stays mainly in the plain, :(

Buffy

[jedaisoul]

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.

I've scanned the thread but not read it all, so please accept my apologies if my point has already been made...

 

It is NOT true to say "in Special Relativity, all frames of reference are equal". If this were so, the "Twin Paradox" genuinely would be a paradox. It isn't, because, in SR, not all frames of reference are equal. To save wasting the time of those who are already familiar with the "Twin Paradox" and its solution by Paul Langevin in 1911, I'll just post a link to the Wiki article...

[modest]

I've scanned the thread but not read it all, so please accept my apologies if my point has already been made...

 

It is NOT true to say "in Special Relativity, all frames of reference are equal". If this were so, the "Twin Paradox" genuinely would be a paradox. It isn't, because, in SR, not all frames of reference are equal. To save wasting the time of those who are already familiar with the "Twin Paradox" and its solution by Paul Langevin in 1911, I'll just post a link to the Wiki article...

 

I agree about special relativity, but it's general relativity that lets you choose a coordinate system where earth is at rest and the universe revolves around it. The twin paradox is a good analogy. In general relativity the solution to the twin paradox lets the younger twin be at rest the whole time. See link 11 from the "notes" section of your link.

 

~modest