No Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

[RichardT]

Papers Proving that there is no Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. "Relativity of Rotation," Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.​

These papers just scratch the surface. They led Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his cosmological expertise, to proclaim: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."
— Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.



http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/refs.html

 

[Mumbo]

Dear Richard,

I am writing you from Mars to in inform you that although us Martians have utilized exactly the same techniques that your geocentrists have used, we have come to a very different conclusion. While we agree with you insofar as any point of reference is equally valid, we are inclined to believe that Mars is at the center of the universe, as that is what our holy texts state. If you possess any proof to the contrary, we would very much appreciate you sharing it with us!

Sincerely,
An inquisitive martian

 

[sbvera13]

Hold on now. If all references in the universe are relative, then wouldn't the center be nonexistent? After all, to find the center of a circle, you ahve to be able to reference the edges. But if all references are relative, so there's no way for there to even be a center much less find one.

 

[Phred]

Gee, except for the fact that the earth actually orbits the sun and all...

 

[Logic_Fault]

Gee, except for the fact that the earth actually orbits the sun and all...

Shhh! I hear geocentricists hate it when reality creeps in almost as much as creationists do.

 

[[serious]]

Since rotation/orbit is acceleration, the lack of preference for an inertial reference frame doesn't apply. rotation, orbit, and other forms of acceleration can be measured regardless of the inertial reference frame you use.

 

[USincognito]

Richard,

Instead of starting all these threads that run 3-15 responses, how about if you start a "Neat Stuff I Found On The Web" thread and then just post the latest find to that thread. When the thread dies, wait until you found your next great revelation and post it there.

Since there's no time limit in editing, you can even go to the OP and add something like New Content in post 33 or whatever.

 

[Blayz]

Richard,

Instead of starting all these threads that run 3-15 responses, how about if you start a "Neat Stuff I Found On The Web" thread and then just post the latest find to that thread. When the thread dies, wait until you found your next great revelation and post it there.

Since there's no time limit in editing, you can even go to the OP and add something like New Content in post 33 or whatever.

Given his references rnge from 1916 to 1977, it is clear the chance of something "new" arriving is slim.

And, yet again, Richard suffers from the Xtian fundy disease of "he's really famous, he must be right"


Which part of "we dont care what other people think" are you having trouble understanding?

And you STILL have not responded to my post. Starting to look like cowardice to me,

 

[RichardT]

And you STILL have not responded to my post. Starting to look like cowardice to me

I know, you guys seem to remember this forever. I'll have to get to you someday. I'll have to get back to FB and thaumaturgy as well. (from a really long time ago)

 

[[serious]]

I know, you guys seem to remember this forever. I'll have to get to you someday. I'll have to get back to FB and thaumaturgy as well. (from a really long time ago)

Rich, i hope my post has explained why inertial reference frames are irrelevant to questions of rotation.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Hold on now. If all references in the universe are relative, then wouldn't the center be nonexistent? After all, to find the center of a circle, you ahve to be able to reference the edges. But if all references are relative, so there's no way for there to even be a center much less find one.

Bingo. An easy way to visualize is to view the universe as the surface of a hollow sphere (a balloon if you will). You can't point to an absolute center of the surface of the sphere, because there isn't one. You can only arbitrarily pick one, which is what Richard is doing with his geocentrism bit.

 

[Deadbolt]

I know, you guys seem to remember this forever. I'll have to get to you someday. I'll have to get back to FB and thaumaturgy as well. (from a really long time ago)

Thaumaturgy? As in magic?
Now I've heard everything.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Given his references rnge from 1916 to 1977, it is clear the chance of something "new" arriving is slim.

And, yet again, Richard suffers from the Xtian fundy disease of "he's really famous, he must be right"


Which part of "we dont care what other people think" are you having trouble understanding?

And you STILL have not responded to my post. Starting to look like cowardice to me,

Actually, there's one in there from 1898. Cutting edge stuff.

 

[FishFace]

Papers Proving that there is no Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. "Relativity of Rotation," Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.​

These papers just scratch the surface. They led Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his cosmological expertise, to proclaim: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."
— Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.



http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/refs.html

Then you have no problem with the fact that the earth orbits the sun (i.e. it orbits a point that lies inside the sun) Then claiming geocentrism is misleading, because the sun does not orbit a point inside the earth.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Thaumaturgy? As in magic?
Now I've heard everything.

Thaumaturgy, as in "forum member Thaumaturgy".

 

[RichardT]

Then you have no problem with the fact that the earth orbits the sun (i.e. it orbits a point that lies inside the sun) Then claiming geocentrism is misleading, because the sun does not orbit a point inside the earth.

Thirring proves in this one that a rotating shell of matter could produce the centrifugal force and Coriolis effect. It's actually not that long.

Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.

 

[Phred]

Thirring proves in this one that a shell of matter could produce the centrifugal force and Coriolis effect. It's actually not that long.

Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.

Centrifugal force is an illusion. Centripedal force is real. Start there.

 

[Dragar]

If you want to work in a non-inertial frame, and talk about things in a non-inertial frame, be our guest.

But geocentrism is not 'all frames are equal under god'. It's 'the Earth centred reference frame is the correct one, and all other ones are wrong'.

That's a stupid view, because we know that all reference frames are valid (just some are easier to work in than others). The moment you even concde that there is no physical difference between the two views, you've conceded geocentrism is a viewpoint that simply makes thinking about things harder than it can be, not a special 'god given' frame that places mankind in the centre of the world.

 

[FishFace]

Thirring proves in this one that a rotating shell of matter could produce the centrifugal force and Coriolis effect. It's actually not that long.

Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.

Are you claiming this is true? What observations are consistent with your model that are not consistent with classical astronomy? If there aren't any, then I'll slice you up with Occam's razor.

 

[Merlin]

Papers Proving that there is no Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

1. Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
2. Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
3. Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
4. Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
5. Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
6. Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
7. Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
8. Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.

For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. "Relativity of Rotation," Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity, 10:727.​

These papers just scratch the surface. They led Sir Fred Hoyle, who was knighted for his cosmological expertise, to proclaim: "We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."
— Sir Fred Hoyle in Astronomy and Cosmology, 1975, p. 416.



http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/refs.html

Use the model which works best for you.