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

[[serious]]

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.

You are actually also missing my point. Playing with inertial reference frames doesn't help when talking about rotations and orbits. This is because accelerations, to include orbits and rotations, are the same regardless of inertial reference frame.

Once again, inertial reference frames do not include acceleration.

 

[Gracchus]

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)

Riiight....

 

[RichardT]

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.

I'm fully aware of the balloon universe of the big bang theory. I don't believe in it, though.

The alternative, using biblical presuppositions that I believe in is Dr. Russel Humphreys White Hole Cosmology in a bounded universe.

The following is from Dr. Humphreys.


Figure 6. Galaxies tend to be grouped in concentric spherical shells around our home galaxy. The distance interval between shells is of the order of a million light years, but since several different intervals exist, the true picture is more complex than the idealization shown here. [Click image to enlarge.]
Figure 7. Coordinate system used in section 6. The distance r′ is independent of the distant galaxy’s azimuth ƒ around the axis of displacement. If our galaxy were greatly displaced from the centre, the distance groupings seen from our vantage point would overlap one another and become indistinguishable. [Click image to enlarge.]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

If Richard accepts the idea that a heliocentric universe and a geocentric universe are not contradictory does he also accept that freedom is slavery? Or maybe, a literal interpretation of Genesis does not contradict a non-literal interpretation.

 

[RichardT]

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

I laugh every time I hear this lol.

 

[lemmings]

Figure 6. Galaxies tend to be grouped in concentric spherical shells around our home galaxy. The distance interval between shells is of the order of a million light years, but since several different intervals exist, the true picture is more complex than the idealization shown here.

Here is a map of the Local Group.

A map of all the stars within 2E8 Lightyears of us including the Virgo Supercluster where we live.

Where is this spherical concentration of galaxies? I get the feeling that Dr. Humphreys made it all up.

 

[[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.

Rich, I'd still like confirmation that you've read this. I want to make sure you know that inertial reference frames are irrelevant to questions of rotation.

 

[Dragar]

You are actually also missing my point. Playing with inertial reference frames doesn't help when talking about rotations and orbits. This is because accelerations, to include orbits and rotations, are the same regardless of inertial reference frame.

Once again, inertial reference frames do not include acceleration.

First of all, you'll note I said if RichardT wants to work in a non-inertial frame he's quite welcome.

Second of all, inertial frames do include acceleration, of other objects. (I should probably clarify I mean inertial in the Newtonian sense.) And you can describe the orbit of the planets in a non-inertial frame with any origin of your coordinate system - including, should you shoose it, the Earth. It's ugly, but it's not forbidden.

Third, what makes inertial frames superior to non-inertial ones, exactly?

You might answer the absence of pseudo-forces - but in both Newton's and Einstein's picture, this argument is certainly not airtight - read up on the insights of Mach. And regardless, you're still then assuming that the lack of a centrifugal force is somehow more correct than one appearing in the equations. Once again, a debatable point. It's certainly simplier, and more elegant, but those do not imply correctness.

 

[Dragar]

RichardT, that's a dumb model you've presented there. That the Earth should be the centre of a spherical rings of matter is certainly not ruled out, but it's ridiculous to assume that humanity occupies a special place in the cosmos. There's no evidence for such a thing, and plenty of evidence to suggest we're not important in the slightest.

Besideswhich, the alternate assumption has proved far more productive in generating an understanding of our universe.

 

[MoonLancer]

RichardT, how do you explain that sour solor system is on one of the arms of the milky way, and not in its center?

 

[LeeC]

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

RichardT - the last time you posted some "peer reviewed physics papers" I actually took the trouble to read one and posted a reply.

I do not recall a response from you on it?
( It here if you care to look again

http://foru.ms/showthread.php?p=38119204#post38119204

The paper was a JOKE in science terms)

Will it be worth my while reading any of these papers?

Please post just a few paragraphs from the important ones and I will take a look.

If you cannot do this, then I will not waste my time further.

How can you accept this rubbish as science I do not know.

So are you saying that the Earth is the centre of the solar system?

Then here is a question for you if this is what you think...

How do you explain the Parallax of "near by" stars?

I will explain it by the Earth moving around the sun.

Do you agree?

Lee

 

[LeeC]

You know what... I don't really know what RichardT is claiming?

The Earth at the centre of the universe?
The solar system at the centre of the universe?
The Galaxy at the centre of the universe?
The Galaxy cluster is at the centre of the universe?

RichardT - help me out here, you have merely posted papers that are not your own.

Tell us what you think and why. In your own words.

I have forgot, are you a YEC or not? I think you are if I remember correctly - so you have more problems than this to answer if I am correct.

Lee

 

[Loudmouth]

As usual, I will once again mention Stellar Parallax. This site even has a nice animation for Richie to check out.

 

[LeeC]

As usual, I will once again mention Stellar Parallax. This site even has a nice animation for Richie to check out.

I asked the same question... wonder if we will get an answer for RichardT? Or just another "paper" thrown at us.

Lee

 

[[serious]]

I haven't even gotten him to acknowledge that inertial reference frames don't include acceleration (like orbits and rotations)

 

[LeeC]

Where has RichardT gone?

Would love to hear a reply to the questions here.

Lee

 

[dukeofhazzard]

Where has RichardT gone?

Would love to hear a reply to the questions here.

Lee

You think maybe his mommy grounded him?

 

[mrpiddly]

From now on, the one square mile of kenilworth will be the center of the universe. This is based on scientific knowledge from 2422 BC and measurments taken by cutting open tress and counting their rings, so it must be true. Also, Kenilworth is the center of the universe because i said so and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

 

[Phred]

Retrograde motion.

 

[dukeofhazzard]

From now on, the one square mile of kenilworth will be the center of the universe. This is based on scientific knowledge from 2422 BC and measurments taken by cutting open tress and counting their rings, so it must be true. Also, Kenilworth is the center of the universe because i said so and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

Of course! And the theory also works because although kenilworth is now the center of the universe, everything still *looks* the same...