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

[LeeC]

Lee, I believe in gravitation and relativity,

Excellent stuff... I'm glad you do.

but that they are relative forces, just like how Fred Hoyle concluded,

"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." (1975)

You want to cut and paste?

OK - me too.

1. The fact that different frames of reference all work does not mean that one frame makes as much sense as any other in any application. For navigating city streets, a geocentric frame makes sense; we would not want constantly to recalculate our position relative to the sun. For considering the solar system as a whole, however, a heliocentric frame makes sense. Figuring the calculations of the rest of the universe spinning and wobbling around the earth would be possible in theory, but prohibitive in practice.

Another frame of reference and mathematical transformations put the universe on the inside of a hollow earth. That model is mathematically equivalent to standard cosmology (S. Morris 1983). If physical significance is the only criterion, it is just as good as a heliocentric frame, too.
2. The claim cuts both ways. It also says that heliocentrism is just as good as geocentrism, as is the frame of reference relative to any other planet around any other star. It says that geocentrism is correct only if you choose to interpret it that way. Some people may want to interpret it that way, but they cannot then claim that others are wrong. The earth still moves.

I rather not do that too often, so please only cut and paste if you can add something to the quote.

I'll add that I prefer FundieBasher's "cat's left nostril" as my frame of reference from now add.

FunndieBasher - please keep us all posted which direction your cat is facing so I can re-draw my maps.

I'll have to get back to you on stellar parallax, although I'm sure that it's probably really not a problem.

You really would like to think it is not a problem for your static Earth centric model... well, time will tell.

Lets see what you have.

Lee

 

[FundieBasher]

I would estimate that my cat is currently facing a little north of due east. However, this brings up an interesting point: that information is meaningless without knowing what frame of reference I am using as a comparison. As my cat tends to move around a lot and I am the only one in any position to tell the location and orientation of my cat's left nostril, the "cat's-left-nostril-centric" model isn't likely to be the most practical for everyone, even though it is as valid as any other mathematically.

 

[LeeC]

I would estimate that my cat is currently facing a little north of due east. However, this brings up an interesting point: that information is meaningless without knowing what frame of reference I am using as a comparison. As my cat tends to move around a lot and I am the only one in any position to tell the location and orientation of my cat's left nostril, the "cat's-left-nostril-centric" model isn't likely to be the most practical for everyone, even though it is as valid as any other mathematically.

Damn... I have to re-draw my map AGAIN!!

 

[Ganymede]

Fred Hoyle also proposed a static universe - a teory long discredited.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

Fred Hoyle also proposed a static universe - a teory long discredited.

Didn't he also write a book about rules for card games?

 

[NorrinRadd]

Eh.

Not much going on in the Spirit-filled forum, thus I'm bored, so...

Maybe you can find something about "parallax" at the "Official Geocentricity Web Site." Try having Google do a "site search."

 

[LeeC]

Fred Hoyle also proposed a static universe - a teory long discredited.

Sorry – I have to put my sad hat on again – hope you do not mind?

Fred Hoyle was happy with the expanding universe (he had to be, Fred was a scientist and the expansion of the universe had been measure 10-20 years before his theory).

The “steady state” theory for the universe is what you are thinking of - I think – it is not a model of a static universe. This theory accounts for the expanding universe by the continuous generation of new matter.

The theory was a pretty good one at the time it was suggested – the only problem now is the small fact it does not match measurable observations in the universe i.e. the cosmic background radiation which Hoyle’s theory cannot explain (It was however predicted by the “Big Bang” theory – the name first coined by Fred Hoyle as an insult to the theory)

You might be thinking of Einstein and his cosmologic constant perhaps? Not really his fault though– Einstein was not an astronomer and was told at the time the universe was static, although this did not really make sense – hence Einstein needed his constant to keep the universe “static”. In the 1930’s Hubble measured the expanding universe, and the constant was removed from the equations. (Funny thing – it has in the last 10 years been put back due to dark energy – don’t you just love it?)

Here ends the history lesson… sorry.

Probably made a mistake myself somewhere, this is all from the top of my head – very dangerous on a forum like this. Serves me right.

Thanks

Lee

 

[LeeC]

Eh.

Not much going on in the Spirit-filled forum, thus I'm bored, so...

Maybe you can find something about "parallax" at the "Official Geocentricity Web Site." Try having Google do a "site search."

Oh dear... they have a web-site for this rubbish?

I scared... but not surprised.

 

[LeeC]

Eh.

Not much going on in the Spirit-filled forum, thus I'm bored, so...

Maybe you can find something about "parallax" at the "Official Geocentricity Web Site." Try having Google do a "site search."

From the site... their first words.

"Of all the sciences, the Holy Bible has more to say about astronomy than any other"

It is like looking at a car accident - I know I shouldn't, and I won’t like what I might see... but I just have to look don’t I.

Lee

 

[[serious]]

Lee, I believe in gravitation and relativity, but that they are relative forces, just like how Fred Hoyle concluded,

"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." (1975)

I'll have to get back to you on stellar parallax, although I'm sure that it's probably really not a problem.

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]

Rich, as I've explained several times before, helio centric and geocentric models are NOT just relative motion. It is a differene of ACCELERATION which is NOT covered by switching reference frames. If the earth is still, you would have at least 2 completely unexplained forces to account for. The first would be the Coriolis effect (which happens to match exactly what would happen if earth was rotating) Then you've got paralaxes both from rotation of the earth and our orbit around the sun.

So once again, we are ACCELERATING. This means switching reference frames doesn't help.

Please respond to let me know if you now understand what I've been saying.

 

[Dragar]

Why are uexplained forces so bad?

The situation is even more ambiguous in GR - why is one particular geometry better than another? In fact, if we are to prefer inertial frames, then freely falling reference frames are the preferred ones, in stark contrast to a Newtonian preference.

It's ugly and complicated, but it's nonsense to say it's wrong to use an Earth centred reference frame. And it's precisely because it's not sensible to talk about a choice of reference frame being correct or incorrect that geocentrism can be ruled out as bonkers. As another poster has pointed out, there is no physical difference between geocrentrism, heliocentrism, or any-other-object-centrism - including other stars in the universe.

And that's bad news for the people who think it's correct to place the Earth at the centre. It's not that they're wrong - it's that the terms don't even apply.

(Parralax can be explained by the nearby stars moving back and forth across the sky as the sun orbits the Earth ).

 

[RichardT]

Eh.

Not much going on in the Spirit-filled forum, thus I'm bored, so...

Maybe you can find something about "parallax" at the "Official Geocentricity Web Site." Try having Google do a "site search."

Man. I'm such a noob. I didn't know you could search the site if you didn't add the WWW to it. If you go to

http://geocentricity.com you'll be able to search the site

If you go to http://www.geocentricity.com you won't, for some reason.

 

[Ganymede]

Sorry – I have to put my sad hat on again – hope you do not mind?

Fred Hoyle was happy with the expanding universe (he had to be, Fred was a scientist and the expansion of the universe had been measure 10-20 years before his theory).

The “steady state” theory for the universe is what you are thinking of - I think – it is not a model of a static universe. This theory accounts for the expanding universe by the continuous generation of new matter.

The theory was a pretty good one at the time it was suggested – the only problem now is the small fact it does not match measurable observations in the universe i.e. the cosmic background radiation which Hoyle’s theory cannot explain (It was however predicted by the “Big Bang” theory – the name first coined by Fred Hoyle as an insult to the theory)

You might be thinking of Einstein and his cosmologic constant perhaps? Not really his fault though– Einstein was not an astronomer and was told at the time the universe was static, although this did not really make sense – hence Einstein needed his constant to keep the universe “static”. In the 1930’s Hubble measured the expanding universe, and the constant was removed from the equations. (Funny thing – it has in the last 10 years been put back due to dark energy – don’t you just love it?)

Here ends the history lesson… sorry.

Probably made a mistake myself somewhere, this is all from the top of my head – very dangerous on a forum like this. Serves me right.

Thanks

Lee

You right - I thought at the time that "static" was the wrong word, but couldn't remember the phrase "steady state".

One thing I do remember was that Hoyle persisted with his "steady state" theory long after most other scientists had accepted that it was wrong.

 

[RichardT]

"Of all the sciences, the Holy Bible has more to say about astronomy than any other"

A common misconception about this quote is that people generally think that Dr. Bouw is calling the bible a science. He is not. He is stating that the bible touches more on astronomy than all the other sciences.

 

[RichardT]

Rich, as I've explained several times before, helio centric and geocentric models are NOT just relative motion. It is a differene of ACCELERATION which is NOT covered by switching reference frames. If the earth is still, you would have at least 2 completely unexplained forces to account for. The first would be the Coriolis effect (which happens to match exactly what would happen if earth was rotating) Then you've got paralaxes both from rotation of the earth and our orbit around the sun.

So once again, we are ACCELERATING. This means switching reference frames doesn't help.

Please respond to let me know if you now understand what I've been saying.

This was the exact reason why I started this thread, the Coriolis and Centrifugal forces would happen in a rotating shell of matter as proven by Hans Thirring.

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

 

[RichardT]

(Parralax can be explained by the nearby stars moving back and forth across the sky as the sun orbits the Earth ).

You sure about that? Can you explain how this works exactly? We can be the 2 forum Geocentrists! That's awesome.

 

[lemmings]

Perhaps you could also try verifying that your sources are not telling outright lies as well.

Bump

 

[RichardT]

Why doesn’t this force act upon the rest of the Earth then?

A boat, even if it has no power, will still move as long as there is a current flowing around it.

Paul Gerber demonstrated that a rotating universe would cause the pendulum to move.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at though.

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/research/translations/gerber/gerber.pdf

 

[lemmings]

Paul Gerber demonstrated that a rotating universe would cause the pendulum to move.

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at though.

I understand that large objects that are rotating can generate a force. In your model, it is this force that is acting the pendulum causing it to rotate. However this same force would also be acting on the Earth. Over time the Earth would begin accelerating and will one day stop moving relative to the ether giving us a permanent day/night.

 

[Loudmouth]

You sure about that? Can you explain how this works exactly? We can be the 2 forum Geocentrists! That's awesome.

Here is yet another animation that describes stellar parallax in a heliocentric solar system. If the Earth did not move then stellar parallax would not be observed.

You can observe the same effect where you are sitting right now. Stretch out your arm and hold your thumb up. Align your thumb with the area between your eyes and hold your thumb still. Close one eye and note the position of your thumb in relation to a distant object. Close that eye and open the other eye. Note the position of your thumb with a distant object. You will observe that your thumb moves in relation with distant objects. Even better, quickly open and shut each eye and your thumb will appear to bounce between two different positions. This is because your eyes are separated by a specific distance. In the same way, we observe stars shifting in relation to more distant stars during different times of the year because the Earth is in a different position. Your eyes are analogous to the position of the Earth at each 6 month interval.