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

[Dragar]

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

Of course it works; by operating in a non-inertial reference frame you introduce (in a Newtonian picture) extra forces into the picture that act upon the stars. But you're mistaken if you think I'm a geocentrist. I'm a relativist, and think geocentrism (as your thread title points out) is a position of complete misunderstanding of what the last few hundred years of physics is telling us.

 

[LeeC]

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

Is that a similar to the explanation how “fairy dust” answers the frost I see in the morning on my grass?

You have to be having a laugh? You must be...

Do you have any mechanism that would move these stars from side to side in just the right amount – in a regular yearly fashion (the yearly is the key, how would these stars know what an Earth year is. How would the star “know” when we were measuring it)?

Why is it only the near-by stars move, yet the more distant stars and galaxies we "see" no movement?

Why do these stars move from left to right and it makes “sense” - but it is "crazy" to think that the Earth is moving at all? These stars are more massive than the Earth, but RichardT thinks the Earth is stationary?

Why do stars have "proper" motion and move across the sky over the centuries? Are you claiming that they move backwards and forwards (One step forward, two steps back?) across the sky? - Amazing!

Why do stars move from left to right at all - what is the purpose of this action in God's little game? It was not mentioned in the bible, and could only be measured in the 19th Century?

Why do we see stars orbiting in binary star systems?
Why do we see moons orbiting other planets (lets say Jupiter for example)?

Why do we observe all this, and some think it makes more sense for the Earth to be stationary?

So of course, "Magic Man" can do many things... move stars in just the right about from left to right (maybe).

But you have to laugh if you truly believe it...

Anyway - I want to see the science... I did not think we were talking about "magic" - but creation science (whatever that is?)

Lee

 

[LeeC]

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.

Doesn’t surprise me… I think old Freddie got a little religious on his theory.

Einstein persisted with the idea that Quantum mechanics was false for his whole life (even though he started the revolution with his theory on the photoelectric effect) and he was actually trying to write equations on his deathbed to prove quantum mechanics wrong.

I suppose theories do get “stuck” on some individuals and they cannot break free from them – but NOT science as a whole. Science as a group rejects those theories that have been proven wrong by experiment. (To be fair on Einstein, the experiments to prove QM valid came after his death – so he might had changed his mind.)


Lee

 

[LeeC]

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

God did it?

Now come RichardT, no copying... you have to answer the question yourself - do your own research.

Lee

 

[RichardT]

They do tend to be around 100 million LY apart.

"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."

 

[Dragar]

Why do stars have "proper" motion and move across the sky over the centuries? Are you claiming that they move backwards and forwards (One step forward, two steps back?) across the sky? - Amazing!

With the correct choice reference frame, they do. And we're free to choose whichever one we like. You, too, seem to have completely misunderstood both the physics and the reasons why geocentrism is a dumb idea.

 

[NailsII]

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

And that is th whole problem in one line: using biblical presuppositions.
Automatically it is bad science.

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

Quality.
When Ash asked if you write for a living, she wasn't just being polite.
One-liners like this are just beautiful.
I am so glad I evolved sufficiently to narrowly avoiding spitting coffee on my laptop.
Priceless mate.

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.

Should the last line not read:
"He is stating that the bible is based more on astrology than fact"?

 

[RichardT]

And that is th whole problem in one line: using biblical presuppositions.
Automatically it is bad science.

I'm honest about my presuppositions, are you honest about yours?

 

[LeeC]

With the correct choice reference frame, they do. And we're free to choose whichever one we like. You, too, seem to have completely misunderstood both the physics and the reasons why geocentrism is a dumb idea.

I misunderstood the Physics? Fair enough - so help me out... What is the correct reference frame?

I am using the Earth. It is were the telescopes are...

I know why “geocentrism” is a dumb area - it does not match observation (and therefore reality).

My last post was heavily sarcastic - I hope you do not think I believe in the Earth centric model… I have my physics and astrophysics degree… I’ve seen the evidence.

You have to have faith to believe in the geocentric model today... blind faith - blind to the evidence, faith without reason.

Thanks

Lee

 

[LeeC]

I'm honest about my presuppositions, are you honest about yours?

Yes I am... just read any physics book. Ask me any question and I will answer honestly.

I will also change when views and ideas when presented with new evidence.

Can you say the same?

I do NOT maintain a single view and try and fit the world and observations around it. I observe the evidence first, and try and explain that.

BTW

You still have NOT answered how your Earth centric model can explain the parallax of nearby stars.

Come on – it is the best evidence AGAINST your mode/idea – so attack it with logic, reason and observations.

I think you cannot – and you will ignore the problem and run away. Show me you are better than this.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

I am so glad I evolved sufficiently to narrowly avoiding spitting coffee on my laptop.
Priceless mate.

Thanks you made me laugh.

And sorry for any coffee stains...

I'm busy until Wednesday - so will be away from the debate a little - but I look forward to RichardT reply, he has some time to think about it now.

Lee

 

[lemmings]

They do tend to be around 100 million LY apart.

You are aware that each of those little white dots represents an entire galaxy. If they where a 100 million light years apart then there should only be 2 shells of stars in that picture.

 

[NailsII]

I'm honest about my presuppositions, are you honest about yours?

I try not to have suppositions.
The knowledge I have accumulated throughout my short life is an obvious supposition, but if what I was taught 5 years ago at Universty is no longer valid, I need to re-evaluate and re-educate myself.
That is the easiest way scientists are caught out - not being so much wrong, more out-of-date (if you understand the logic of this).
In short, if my education (RESUPPOSITIONS IF YOU LIKE) are wrong (ie no longer fit the evidence as new evidence has refuted these claims) then my presuppositions change.
That is good science, and as we all know biblical assumptions are not changeable - you either believe it or you don't, regardless of evidence.

 

[[serious]]

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.

what would the rotating shell be? what would keep it rotating? what about paralax? centrifugal forces would happen on the shell, but that wouldn't transfer to a stationary sphere inside the rotating shell.

How about season changes? what makes the orbit of the sun around the earth change in a steady and predictable annual pattern?

 

[Dragar]

I misunderstood the Physics? Fair enough - so help me out... What is the correct reference frame?

There is no such thing as a 'correct' reference frame. There are just simplier reference frames than others.

I know why “geocentrism” is a dumb area - it does not match observation (and therefore reality).

Okay, perhaps I should distinguish here. The older ideas of geocentrism certainly did have different predictions - but these ideas were based on the idea that all the planets orbited the Earth. This is clearly not the case, without making extremely convoluted laws of physics up. It's simply far less laden with convoluted 'fixes' to the theory if you have Newton's laws (or Einstein's theory) as valid, and the planets orbiting about a common centre of mass which is within the Sun.

Now, these days we also have an understanding that motion is relative, that it's daft to say that such and such is moving (or even rotating) without specifying with respect to what. (If you're interested in why rotations are also included in this, and what RichardT's rather confused posts are about, read about Mach's insights and Newton's Bucket. Or go here for a pretty good summary. But the synopsis is that the old notion of absolute motion is simply wrong. RichardT is taking this to mean that geocentrism and heliocentrism are identical - by which he is meaning that the viewpoint of the Sun being the centre of your coordinte system is physically identical the Earth being the centre of your coordinate system.

In this case, he is correct but he has just made geoecentrism redundant. The whole point of geocentrism was that the Earth is somehow special, but by taking this view he has reduced geocentrism to just a complicated picture of heliocentrism. And that makes it pointless to consider.

 

[Dragar]

There are an infinite number of distant galaxies out there, with a uniform density. That's makes them a pretty good shell (and, as Thirring showed, means Mach's principle is obeyed in a universe such as ours (though not, despite Einstein's hopes, in an empty one).

 

[[serious]]

Now, these days we also have an understanding that motion is relative, that it's daft to say that such and such is moving (or even rotating) without specifying with respect to what. (If you're interested in why rotations are also included in this, and what RichardT's rather confused posts are about, read about Mach's insights and Newton's Bucket.

newton's bucket is a demonstration of accelerations being independently measurable. An object has a rotation or lack of rotation in any inertial reference frame. The concept of frame dragging does not negate this nor would such an explanation be possible in the universe as we know it. There would still be any number of inertial reference frames in local space all of which would show the earth's rotation and orbit about the sun. Also, frame dragging has been measured with earth's rotation. Even rejecting all of that, we also have the CBR to measure from.

But let's step back from all of that for a moment. Let's assume that there is some mass rotating sufficently to fake earth's rotation. That only takes care of one plane of rotation. We must introduce a new rotating body for every acceleration the earth is under. A rough count would include:
The moon's gravitational pull on earth
The earth's rotation
The earth's orbit around the sun
The sun's orbit about the milkyway
The milky way's orbit about the local group
The local group's orbit about the supercluster

Keep in mind that we have yet to find any such super massive spinning objects that would account for any of these.

 

[LeeC]

No evidence for a static Earth centric solar system and a reason for the measured and observed stellar parallax?

Funny that...

I think this debate is closed... unless RichardT wishes to bring new evidence to it.

Lee

 

[NailsII]

RichardT - you are obviously a very gifted debator an and educated individual, and because of this I would like to ask you one question.
Why would the earth be in the centre of the galaxy/universe - centre of anything, for that matter!!!
If, as you claim, we were created by god in his image, would he put us in the centre of anything?
Is he more likely to place us on an average planet, in a nondescrpit orbit around an average star?
I don't understand the significance of any of this.
There is no logic to us being in the middle.
That would only be a man-made priority, in my humble opinion anyway.

 

[LeeC]

RichardT - you are obviously a very gifted debator an and educated individual

Lee