-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
No Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View
- Thread starter RichardT
- Start date
Richard,
You still have some questions from me about the apparent fluctuations in the rate the universe whizzes around the earth each day that result from changing seasons, earthquakes and tidal interactions with the moon. I hope you haven't forgotten them.
You still have some questions from me about the apparent fluctuations in the rate the universe whizzes around the earth each day that result from changing seasons, earthquakes and tidal interactions with the moon. I hope you haven't forgotten them.
Upvote
0
Richard,
Let's consider the Voyager 1 space probe. It is now about 1.55 x 10^10 km from earth. In the geocentric model it now traveling not only outward toward interstellar space but also making a huge circle around the solar system each sidereal day. The circumference of this circle is nearly 10^10 km and the probe now has a sumerluminal velocity wrt the earth. Not only that the probe now has an angular momentum relative to the earth that I calculate to be more that 10^26 N-m-s (~10^25 kg-m^2/s). What is applying the tremendous amount of torque to voyager to cause this enormous and ever increasing angular momentum wrt to the earth?
Let's consider the Voyager 1 space probe. It is now about 1.55 x 10^10 km from earth. In the geocentric model it now traveling not only outward toward interstellar space but also making a huge circle around the solar system each sidereal day. The circumference of this circle is nearly 10^10 km and the probe now has a sumerluminal velocity wrt the earth. Not only that the probe now has an angular momentum relative to the earth that I calculate to be more that 10^26 N-m-s (~10^25 kg-m^2/s). What is applying the tremendous amount of torque to voyager to cause this enormous and ever increasing angular momentum wrt to the earth?
Upvote
0
How does that work in a geocentric universe? How can you use a Lorentz transformation on a superluminal velocity? How can the Voyager probe be accelarated to a superluminal velocity? The whole thing makes no sense to me and I would like a clear explanation from our resident geocentrist on how it could possibly work.
Upvote
0
Because a change of coordinate system can of course be done - and done properly you're not going to end up with faster than light velocities.
Actually, though, I misread your post slightly. You wouldn't require a Lorentz transformation. You'd require a transformation from the inertial frame of the probe to a non-inertial frame. In that case, you'll recall that general relativity kicks in, and we cannot compare velocities of objects except locally. The local velocity of the probe will of course be c (by definition of how things work in general relativity). Trying to compare that velocity to that of the Earth will only get you confused.
(If you're still doubtful, consider the situation of a photon on the event horizon of a black hole. If it's moving radially outward, and toward you (safely positioned some distance away, and stationary with respect to the black hole), what velocity is the photon going, relative to you?)
While RichardT is being unbelievably dense in all this, you can't really criticise a coordinate transformation for being unphysical if you haven't done it properly.
Upvote
0
You're the one claiming that there is absolute reference frame, which is somehow 'correct', RichardT, and that this picture of the universe includes a swathe of complications to our knowledge of physics that are just such that they make it appear that you are, in fact, simply choosing one complicated reference frame for purely egotistical reasons.
You're also citing papers you don't understand, and refering to ideas that don't quite mean what you think they mean.
You're also citing papers you don't understand, and refering to ideas that don't quite mean what you think they mean.
Upvote
0
For instance, Mach's principle, and the related stuff you've referenced. These things are not saying geocentrism is correct and heliocentrism true. In fact, if you understood their arguments to their conclusion, you'd find that they are arguing all motion, including rotation, is relative (whereas in general rotation is an absolute thing that can be measured). In other words, all coordinate systems - however wacky - are a completely arbitrary choice.
Which is not what geocentrists want to hear.
Which is not what geocentrists want to hear.
Upvote
0
So you're prepared to concede that there is no reason to think the Earth centred coordinate system is no more 'correct' than any other? And that any statement about the Earth being the 'centre' of the universe, or the solar system, or being stationary, or anything like that, is an essentially empty and meaningless one?
Upvote
0
Wasn't that what my thread was about in the first place? I've told you why I believed in Geocentricity before. Bible says sun goes around earth.
Upvote
0
But we've just agreed motion is relative. So the Bible could have said the universe revolves around Pluto, and it would have been just as correct.
Except, does the Bible really mean to say this? Or does it mean to say that the Sun goes around the Earth, and no other perspective is correct?
Either the statement is trivial to the point of being irrelevent, or it's at best meaningless and worst wrong.
Upvote
0
NailsII
Life-long student of biological science
Havn't we been over this already?
Evidence (and common sense) suggests that the bible is wrong.
There is very little credible evidence to back up your claim, and substantial evidence to suggest that the sun is the centre of our solar system, the earth rotates around it and we are stuck out near the edge of our galaxy in a nondescript area of the universe.
And as for logic, there is no logical reason why being in the centre means anything whatsoever.
What you are proposing really, is that the earth is in the centre of your visable universe as all your measurements are made here - I wager that Voyager I would propose the same theory if it were sentient.....
Upvote
0
Gracchus
Senior Veteran
- Dec 21, 2002
- 7,199
- 821
- Faith
- Pantheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
But acceleration is not relative.
Dragar said:
Just as correct as π = 3. In the heliocentric solar system, orbital mechanics is adequately explained by the law of gravity: F=Gm(1)m(2)/s^2. What law describes orbital mechanics in a geocentric system?
Dragar said:
I think the point is that, if we have to revise the laws of physics to accommodate a geocentric solar system it is not physically equivalent to a geocentric system.
Upvote
0
One step at a time. And besides, in GR the situation is slightly more ambiguous...you'll recall that in any frame of reference, the equations can be expressed in an identical fashion.
Upvote
0
My knowledge of relativity is a bit limited so please correct me if I am wrong. GR states that acceleration and gravity are the same. If acceleration is not relative then there is a preferred center of gravity and a preferred center of rotation for a Sun/Earth system.
Upvote
0