The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Geocentrism  (Read 4041 times)

Offline markjwyatt

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Geocentrism
« on: 13/07/2006 21:05:35 »
Hello everyone. I thought thought this would be a good forum to broach this topic. You seem to be open to "alternative" theories. I recently helped Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett (Ph.D's) produce the book, Galileo Was Wrong. I helped with some illustrations, and formatting of the book, etc.

I realize that this is considered an unbelievable topic, but I have been studying it for about 3+ years now, and am convinced that science has in no way eliminated the possibility of geocentrism. In fact, I believe that because of general relativity, science (mainstream) cannot disprove it without invalidating its own tenets. That being said, general relativity does not prove geocentrism, and I do not claim so.

For a minimalist case demonstrating this, see on my blog:

Geocentricity 101: A beginner's Course

Geocentricity 101, Part I: Basic Principles
newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html [nonactive]

Geocentricity 101, Part II: Basic Physics
newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-ii.html [nonactive]
 
Geocentricity 101, Part III: Scriptural and Church Position
newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentrism-101-part-iii-scriptural.html [nonactive]
 
Geocentricity 101, Supplement: Discussion of Scripture and Church Position
newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/10/geocentricity-101-supplement.html [nonactive]


The first two parts deal with the science, and the next two deal with ecclesiastic and Scriptural issues. I presume mainly the scientific part will be discussed here.

Galileo Was Wrong goes well beyond the minimalist case I make, and demonstrates that science, starting soon after Coprenicus and Galileo, has been and still is faced with observation after observation that indicates that earth is in the center of the universe and/or not moving. Yet scientists, blindly accepting Copernicism (or its modern equivalent) refuse to even entertain the simplest explanation available to them to explain the observations/experiments- earth is at center and not moving (i.e., they ignore their own "Occam's Razor"). This is done in over 1000 pages with more than 1500 references.

To get an idea about what is in the book, see these free sample pages.  Please approach this with an open mind. Science has never demonstrated that the earth is moving in any way. I think that if any of you read the book, you will see that science, as it is faced with these observations/experiments, has made science more complex decade after decade and century after century, rather than facing the possibility that man was wrong about accepting Copernicus.

This does not detract from your enjoyment of observing the cosmos. Regardless of whether earth is in the center of the universe or a speck of [practically] dust spit out from some primordial explosion, the things you see in the cosmos are as real as any other physical thing you experience. Rather, I think that knowing that earth is in the center (think of it as a central viewing location) could make viewing the cosmos more enjoyable!

In any case, read my blog, check out the sample pages, and let's talk about this.



Sincerely,

Mark J. Wyatt

newbielink:http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com [nonactive]



 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #1 on: 14/07/2006 02:59:26 »
I can't say that I have read the entirety of your site, just briefly skimmed through the first two sections (the first section, only very briefly, and a little more on the second).

You seem to be suggesting the Earth is held in place by the balanced rotation of the rest of the Universe.

If this was the case, then why is the Solar System somewhere between 26,000 light-years and 35,000 light-years from the centre of the Milk Way, rather than at its centre?  Even if the Milky Way had once been unbalance around the Earth, one would expect over time that it would balance itself our around the Earth (i.e. around the centre of its point of rotation).

This would not be a problem for the other galaxies, since they are well away from your presumed Universal centre of rotation, and their own gravitational forces would have greater effect than the small differential in radius from the centre of rotation; but for the Milky Way, that is actually on the edge of the centre of rotation, and already is spread over such a large space at that close distance, it would not be able to retain its shape.  The relative asymmetry of the Milky Way with respect to the Earth would only make sense if the Milky Way had a centre of rotation that was away from the Earth.

You say that all historic observations are geocentric in nature – in that they are made from the Earth.  On the other hand, the observations do clearly show parallax movements which cannot be explained by geocentric orbits without presuming some very complex forces at work.  Regressive movements in the orbits of the planets around the Earth would require some force that is constantly altering the angular velocity of the planets around the Earth.  A heliocentric solar system easily provides such a force.

You state that “Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe” - as far as I am aware, the argument against a preferred reference frame related only to special relativity, and then only to inertial reference frames.

You suggest that GR regards the universe as Machian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
quote:

Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect.2 Although Einstein was intrigued by Mach's principle, his general relativity does not fully agree with it. There have been attempts to formulate a theory which is more fully Machian, such as Brans-Dicke theory, but none have been completely successful.



Even if one were to accept a Machian universe, all that states is that you cannot discriminate between a rotating body, and a rotating environment, it does not (as far as I can ascertain) in any way suggest that you cannot determine the centre of rotation, or arbitrarily assign the centre of location to a different point in space.  It may suggest that you cannot discriminate between a rotating Earth, and a stationary Earth, with the rest of the universe rotating around the Earth; but what it does not suggest is that you can regard an apparent rotation of Jupiter around the Sun as if it was a rotation of Jupiter around the Earth.



George
« Last Edit: 14/07/2006 03:39:08 by another_someone »
 

Offline markjwyatt

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
    • http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #2 on: 15/07/2006 06:06:05 »
George:

First of all, I appreciate your response. It is not unusual that a response to this topic starts with mockery. You have raised some reasonable questions.


quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
...You seem to be suggesting the Earth is held in place by the balanced rotation of the rest of the Universe.

If this was the case, then why is the Solar System somewhere between 26,000 light-years and 35,000 light-years from the centre of the Milk Way, rather than at its centre?  Even if the Milky Way had once been unbalance around the Earth, one would expect over time that it would balance itself our around the Earth (i.e. around the centre of its point of rotation).

This would not be a problem for the other galaxies, since they are well away from your presumed Universal centre of rotation, and their own gravitational forces would have greater effect than the small differential in radius from the centre of rotation; but for the Milky Way, that is actually on the edge of the centre of rotation, and already is spread over such a large space at that close distance, it would not be able to retain its shape.  The relative asymmetry of the Milky Way with respect to the Earth would only make sense if the Milky Way had a centre of rotation that was away from the Earth.


I do not know exactly why that is so. But since  the rotation of the entire universe is a much greater influence than any given local rotation, I do not think it is intrinsically a problem to the theory. Let's just say there is a black hole at the center of the Milky Way (there is no need to hypothesize black holes in geocentric theory). The black hole would be rotating around the center of mass of the universe (the earth) and the Milky Way would locally rotate around its center (the black hole). If we talk about a Planck particle level ether (as Galileo Was Wrong, newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/06/galileo-was-wrong-vol-i-finally.html [nonactive]) does, then the baryonic mass of the Milky Way is actually relatively insignificant.

quote:
You say that all historic observations are geocentric in nature – in that they are made from the Earth.  On the other hand, the observations do clearly show parallax movements which cannot be explained by geocentric orbits without presuming some very complex forces at work.  Regressive movements in the orbits of the planets around the Earth would require some force that is constantly altering the angular velocity of the planets around the Earth.  A heliocentric solar system easily provides such a force.


If one considers the modern Tychonic system (Earth at center, Sun revolves around the earth with the universe, planets [not earth] orbit the sun), then all solar system movements are exactly the same as in the modern heliocentric (or barycentric). Regressive movements are simply due to the double rotation. As for parallax, the simplest solution is the neo Tychonic (modern Tychonic solar system with stars rotation centered on the sun). This is an exact geocentric inverse of the heliocentric. Threre are many other mechanisms discussed in Galileo Was Wrong for parallax, including abberational effects in ether, etc.

quote:
You state that “Einstein's General Relativity states that there are no preferred reference frames in the universe” - as far as I am aware, the argument against a preferred reference frame related only to special relativity, and then only to inertial reference frames.


My understanding is that it is even more so in general relativity, at least the FRWW metric. A preferred frame would destroy the assumption of isotropy.  The equivalence principle applies only in inertial frames, but I am not invoking this. The only preferred frame that has been seriously considered is the CMB, and this has many problems (one is the observed orientation of the multipole anisotropy to earth's equatorial plane!) . I am proposing that the earth actually is the preferred frame, ultimately (as the CMB actually implies).

Probably a better (and more general) way to state what I wanted to say is that all frames are valid.

quote:
You suggest that GR regards the universe as Machian:

newbielink:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle [nonactive]
quote:

Mach's principle was never developed into a quantitative physical theory that would explain a mechanism by which the stars can have such an effect.2 Although Einstein was intrigued by Mach's principle, his general relativity does not fully agree with it. There have been attempts to formulate a theory which is more fully Machian, such as Brans-Dicke theory, but none have been completely successful.



Even if one were to accept a Machian universe, all that states is that you cannot discriminate between a rotating body, and a rotating environment, it does not (as far as I can ascertain) in any way suggest that you cannot determine the centre of rotation, or arbitrarily assign the centre of location to a different point in space.  It may suggest that you cannot discriminate between a rotating Earth, and a stationary Earth, with the rest of the universe rotating around the Earth; but what it does not suggest is that you can regard an apparent rotation of Jupiter around the Sun as if it was a rotation of Jupiter around the Earth.


I realize there is some controversy as to how "Machian" general relativity is. It is probably better to say that general relativity contains Einstein's interpretation of Mach. This sample page from Galileo Was Wrong ( newbielink:http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2006/07/sample-from-galileo-was-wrong-sent-to.html [nonactive]) discusses this issue in more detail.

Keep in mind that Mach is only being invoked to contrast a rotating universe / static earth to a rotating earth / static universe. Jupiter is presumed to be orbiting the sun, the sun which is carried by the universe around the earth.

It is hard to do justice to your questions in a few sentences like this. Keep in mind that Galileo Was Wrong is over 1000 pages long, and describes all these issues and more. The most powerful aspect of the book is how it reinterprets much of the relevant experimental and observational data without the presumption of a moving earth (which is clearly applied), and shows that much of it supports a non-moving earth in the center as the most simple and straight forward interpretation. Galileo Was Wrong shows that with the interpretation of earth at center and not moving, that special relativity and general relativity are not needed, and in fact relativity was developed to reconcile scientists presumptions that earth was moving and not at center with the observations that earth was not moving and in the center.

Mark Wyatt
newbielink:http://www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com [nonactive]
« Last Edit: 15/07/2006 06:08:41 by markjwyatt »
 

Offline Roy P

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 103
    • View Profile
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #3 on: 15/07/2006 11:10:10 »
quote:
Originally posted by markjwyatt
Keep in mind that Galileo Was Wrong is over 1000 pages long,

The Discovery Institute is pretty heavy on words, but that doesn't make its explanations any less bollox than they really are!

___________________________________________________
Roy P
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #4 on: 17/07/2006 02:11:51 »
quote:
Originally posted by markjwyatt

George:

First of all, I appreciate your response. It is not unusual that a response to this topic starts with mockery. You have raised some reasonable questions.



I see no point in mocking a theory.  If it is right, then I am a fool to mock it; if it is wrong, then it should be proven to be wrong 9or at least, it should be proven to lack utility, since science is first and foremost about the utility of the theories proposed).

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by another_someone
...You seem to be suggesting the Earth is held in place by the balanced rotation of the rest of the Universe.

If this was the case, then why is the Solar System somewhere between 26,000 light-years and 35,000 light-years from the centre of the Milk Way, rather than at its centre?  Even if the Milky Way had once been unbalance around the Earth, one would expect over time that it would balance itself our around the Earth (i.e. around the centre of its point of rotation).

This would not be a problem for the other galaxies, since they are well away from your presumed Universal centre of rotation, and their own gravitational forces would have greater effect than the small differential in radius from the centre of rotation; but for the Milky Way, that is actually on the edge of the centre of rotation, and already is spread over such a large space at that close distance, it would not be able to retain its shape.  The relative asymmetry of the Milky Way with respect to the Earth would only make sense if the Milky Way had a centre of rotation that was away from the Earth.


I do not know exactly why that is so.



This statement alone provides serious concern about the utility of a geocentric theory.

The present cosmic theories, although inevitably incomplete, do provide a good argument to justify the structure of the Milky Way as we see it.  If you are unable to provide such an explanation, then one has to ask what utility is your proposed theory.

Clearly, it may be that you can suggest that there are some cosmic observations that, while inadequately explained by the present theory, are better explained by a geocentric theory.  I would be interested in which such anomalous observations you believe your theory can better explain.

As things stand, it appears to me that you are merely saying that you can explain a subset of that which has already been explained; that there is nothing new that you can explain, and that some of the things that are currently explained, you are unable to explain.

From a purely utilitarian perspective, that puts your theory at a severe disadvantage.

quote:

quote:
You say that all historic observations are geocentric in nature – in that they are made from the Earth.  On the other hand, the observations do clearly show parallax movements which cannot be explained by geocentric orbits without presuming some very complex forces at work.  Regressive movements in the orbits of the planets around the Earth would require some force that is constantly altering the angular velocity of the planets around the Earth.  A heliocentric solar system easily provides such a force.


If one considers the modern Tychonic system (Earth at center, Sun revolves around the earth with the universe, planets [not earth] orbit the sun), then all solar system movements are exactly the same as in the modern heliocentric (or barycentric). Regressive movements are simply due to the double rotation. As for parallax, the simplest solution is the neo Tychonic (modern Tychonic solar system with stars rotation centered on the sun). This is an exact geocentric inverse of the heliocentric. Threre are many other mechanisms discussed in Galileo Was Wrong for parallax, including abberational effects in ether, etc.




The problem is that if there is this substantive force caused by the rotation of the universe that holds the Earth securely in place, then such a force should create substantial distortions of the orbit of the planets around the sun, forcing them into a complex path that is trying to find a compromise between the gravitational pull of the Sun and the centripetal force of the Universal rotation.  In fact, astronomer, without making any allowances for this centripetal force, are able to predict the location of the planets with an extremely high degree of accuracy.  If there was this substantial force that they were neglecting to take account in their calculations, then they should be seeing a very substantial error arising in their calculations.  That error is simply not there.

The other issue you have also to address is that if the entire universe is rotating, then what about the centrifugal forces this would create.  If the entire universe is rotation, then one would expect there to be a force that pushes stars towards the equatorial plane.  No such force has been observed.

There are many phenomena that are inadequately explained by a theory that presumes a substantial  rotation of the entire universe centred on the location of the Earth.

Conversely, I would ask, is that at least one phenomenon that, using the theory you propose, can be more accurately calculated than is possible with the present theory?

Unless you can demonstrate that you can make more accurate predictions that can presently be made with the current theories, then I would suggest you have little hope of your theory supplanting the present theory.

Ofcourse, it is quite possible that you might go away, make some calculation of certain difference between the predictions of the current theories, and the predictions of your new theory, and then demonstrate through observation that the predictions your theories make provide a more accurate prediction of the observations than the current theory.  Unfortunately, until you are in a position to do that, I can see no utility in your theory, and science is all about utility.



George
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #5 on: 17/07/2006 03:22:21 »
how does geocentrism not violate the constant velocity of light?
 

Offline ghh

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #6 on: 17/07/2006 22:53:39 »
Oh Dear!
as a new member I thought I had joined a science website.
Of course it is possible to describe all observed motions as being centred on the observer.
we do this all the time- particularly with relativity, we call it the "laboratory reference frame"
however if we install windows (not the operating system, but the hole in the wall type) and in the left hand window we observe a known phenomenon, with a velocity "x", but in the right hand window we observe the same phenomenon with the velocity "y", one must, reluctantly, conclude that the laboratory is moving.

Graham
 

Offline Mad Mark

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #7 on: 18/07/2006 23:54:32 »
I thought that it was already proven that there cannot be a so called centre of the  universe, as  that would imply that at the very centre of the planet earth one could find a particle that one could observe both its velocity (zero) and position which is impossible.

Tomorrow lies outside our universe without it there would be no tomorrow.
 

another_someone

  • Guest
Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #8 on: 19/07/2006 04:25:16 »
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Mark
I thought that it was already proven that there cannot be a so called centre of the  universe, as  that would imply that at the very centre of the planet earth one could find a particle that one could observe both its velocity (zero) and position which is impossible.



I was not aware any such thing had been proven, although the balance of evidence does seem to point that way.

Simply to demonstrate that one cannot measure a centre does not prove a centre does not exist.  After all, could your argument not equally be used to demonstrate there is not a centre of the Earth (since that too can only be measured by the precision allowed by quantum uncertainty) – yet most people would willingly accept that the Earth does indeed have a centre, even if only approximately measured.

In one sense, we are actually at the centre of the universe.  Not that the Earth is the centre of the universe, but that we personally are at the centre of the universe.  To be more precise, we are at the centre of our own visible universe, because we are only capable of seeing in any direction as far as light could travel since the birth of the universe, and that distance is equal in all directions, and so we must be at the centre of that space.  Ofcourse, if we were living on another galaxy 100 million light years away, we could still say the same for ourselves; so it is not so much that there is no centre of the universe, but that each point of the universe (as far as we know) is the centre of its own visible universe.  Ofcourse, this implies that there must be some universe that can be seen from another point that we cannot see, but since we can neither see it, not know any information about it, thus for all practical purposes we must regard it as not existing.



George
« Last Edit: 19/07/2006 05:17:33 by another_someone »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Geocentrism
« Reply #8 on: 19/07/2006 04:25:16 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums