Why I Am A Geocentrist

[chaoschristian]

While I'm not seriously advocating geocentrism for half-a-minute I would like to point out that this might not be entirely accurate. Because the gravitational force operating in a system has formula GMm/r^2, where both masses are factored into the magnitude of the force, the Earth does have "enough force" to hold larger planets in orbit - force "contributed by" the mass of the larger planet. However, the center-of-mass of the system would of course be a whole lot closer to the larger body.

If understand this correctly, then what you are saying is that it is possible for the Earth to bind the other planets into orbit, but they would need to be alot closer to the Earth in order to do so? Kinda like the cool horizon-scape paintings used in original era Star Trek episodes with ringed gas giants showing up as moons?

Imagine what the tides would be like!

 

[KEPLER]

While I'm not seriously advocating geocentrism for half-a-minute I would like to point out that this might not be entirely accurate. Because the gravitational force operating in a system has formula GMm/r^2, where both masses are factored into the magnitude of the force, the Earth does have "enough force" to hold larger planets in orbit - force "contributed by" the mass of the larger planet. However, the center-of-mass of the system would of course be a whole lot closer to the larger body.

True. I should have qualified my statement by including something about the distances from earth to the outer planets.

Kepler

 

[FreezBee]

If understand this correctly, then what you are saying is that it is possible for the Earth to bind the other planets into orbit, but they would need to be alot closer to the Earth in order to do so? Kinda like the cool horizon-scape paintings used in original era Star Trek episodes with ringed gas giants showing up as moons?

I cannot answer on behalf of shernren, but I am quite sure that he means that the center of gravity would be much closer to the larger planet. Think about it like balancing a rod on a point - the one end represents the mass of the earth, the other end represents the mass of the other planet. To get balance you'll need to place the rod so the point is closer to the end with the larger mass.

We just say heliocentric, because the mass of the sun makes up practically all of the mass in the solar system, so the center of gravity in the solar sytem is within the core of the sun.


- FreezBee

 

[chaoschristian]

I cannot answer on behalf of shernren, but I am quite sure that he means that the center of gravity would be much closer to the larger planet. Think about it like balancing a rod on a point - the one end represents the mass of the earth, the other end represents the mass of the other planet. To get balance you'll need to place the rod so the point is closer to the end with the larger mass.

We just say heliocentric, because the mass of the sun makes up practically all of the mass in the solar system, so the center of gravity in the solar sytem is within the core of the sun.


- FreezBee

Oh, so yes I am misunderstanding it if what you say is an accurate representation of shernren's post.

It just struck me that in a geocentric model ocean tides would then be extreme to say the least.

 

[Deamiter]

I cannot answer on behalf of shernren, but I am quite sure that he means that the center of gravity would be much closer to the larger planet. Think about it like balancing a rod on a point - the one end represents the mass of the earth, the other end represents the mass of the other planet. To get balance you'll need to place the rod so the point is closer to the end with the larger mass.

We just say heliocentric, because the mass of the sun makes up practically all of the mass in the solar system, so the center of gravity in the solar sytem is within the core of the sun.


- FreezBee

Let me point out that this is certainly true, but it immediately rules out a geocentric model simply because it requires that the Earth move.

 

[shernren]

People (Gen 6:9) who (gen 3:6) believe (Gen 45:26) young (Gen 4:24) earth (Gen 1:1) creation (Hab 2:18) sin (Gen 4:7) against (Gen 13:13) God (Gen 1:1)

I just realized something: the word "creationism" isn't found in the Bible! Shucks, I thought this was a Biblical thing ... [massive sarcasm / parody off.]

To freezbee: Isn't center of mass same as center of gravity? or is my physics bad?

To chaos: By Newton's third law, when a massive planet exerts a force on the earth, the earth exerts an equal and opposite force on that massive planet. So both masses have the same amount of force acting on them. However, because acceleration is force divided by mass (a kid pushing a toy car can make it move a lot faster in the same amount of time than if he's pushing a cabinet), the earth ends up accelerating a lot more. That's why the earth will pull a tighter circle and the massive planet a bigger one, so that the center of gravity is closer to the massive planet.

We can only say this if there is one massive planet. If there are two massive planets, the center of gravity will be shifted even closer to them and even farther away from the earth, and we will have to say that the system is orbiting around the most massive planet. In a two planet system we can switch back and forth between "Planet going round earth" and "Earth going round planet", but in a three planet system there will be a definite center of rotation.

 

[chaoschristian]

I just realized something: the word "creationism" isn't found in the Bible! Shucks, I thought this was a Biblical thing ... [massive sarcasm / parody off.]

To freezbee: Isn't center of mass same as center of gravity? or is my physics bad?

To chaos: By Newton's third law, when a massive planet exerts a force on the earth, the earth exerts an equal and opposite force on that massive planet. So both masses have the same amount of force acting on them. However, because acceleration is force divided by mass (a kid pushing a toy car can make it move a lot faster in the same amount of time than if he's pushing a cabinet), the earth ends up accelerating a lot more. That's why the earth will pull a tighter circle and the massive planet a bigger one, so that the center of gravity is closer to the massive planet.

We can only say this if there is one massive planet. If there are two massive planets, the center of gravity will be shifted even closer to them and even farther away from the earth, and we will have to say that the system is orbiting around the most massive planet. In a two planet system we can switch back and forth between "Planet going round earth" and "Earth going round planet", but in a three planet system there will be a definite center of rotation.

Even more astounding is the fact that the word 'creation' doesn't appear in Genesis (KJV) at all!

And thank you for the physics lesson. Not my cup of tea, but at least I understand it all a little more clearly now.

 

[KEPLER]

Meanwhile, Kepler is still waiting for a reply about Mustard seeds...

and waiting...

and waiting...

NPP did you give up?

K

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Meanwhile, Kepler is still waiting for a reply about Mustard seeds...

and waiting...

and waiting...

NPP did you give up?

K

No, but all Sunday I was gone at church and I've been busy most of today.
Your question is intended to paint a literal reading of certain passages in an unfavorable light. And though I realize that many things in scripture are symbolic, the geocentricity expressed throughout scripture is extremely clear. Lets look at the passage you are referring to; for the purpose of this discussion I will defend a literal translation instead of appearing inconsistent by claiming figurative speech!

"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it."

Mark 4:31-32
​

1. If you look at the context you will see that the next verse limits it's discussion to speaking of "herbs" and the both verses limits it to seeds that are "sown".
2. Who are we to say that God couldn't have since that time altered the size of plants and their seeds? Your argument is almost identical to the objection used by atheists and skeptics who claim scripture lies when it talks of Goliath; it is assuming that people couldn't have changed size.* Whereas fossil evidence shows skeletons of enormous people (i.e., over 12 feet tall**). Couldn’t God have changed the size of seeds as well???
3. Finally, who will venture to place the "logic" of fallible man over of the authority of scripture?

Sincerely, Zach Doty

*We are speaking of micro evolution NOT macro evolution. Micro evolution is merely variations within a certain type/species/kind of animal; the animal still remains that same animal. This is biblical and scientific and should not be called evolution as there are only losses of information, information is never gained.

**Watch this video by Kent Hovind. (Kent Hovind is a hated man; as all Christians should be. So I’m asking that you don't try to use the “discredit the messenger” approach as a means of ignoring the message)

 

[Ave Maria]

What is a Geocentrist?

 

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

What is a Geocentrist?

Geo = Earth
Centricity = Center
GeoCentrist = Someone who believes the earth is the center of the solar system and stationary (i.e., does not orbit the sun).

Sincerely, Zach Doty

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Why I Am A Geocentrist?
Simple,
1. Geocentrism is written in Bible
2. I'm a Catholic and Catholic Church's official position on this matter is Geocentrism.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

QUESTION: But doesn't Foucault's swinging pendulum prove the earth moves?
ANSWER: No, As stated above, absolute motion CANNOT be proven. As far as science is concerned, the difference between heliocentricity and geocentricity is one of relative motion only (i.e. The difference lies in the position of the observer relative to the objects); such a difference has no physical significance.

Errrr, No.

There is no physical significance attached to different inertial reference frames, big difference.

Challenge: Get on a kiddie merry-go-round holding a nearly full cup of ice cold water* in winter and have somebody push it smoothly to a very high speed.

Then, with a straight face, tell me that it is really the Earth that is moving and that the non-inertial nature of your movement doesn't have physical significance.

*Do not do this with scalding hot coffee or in sub-zero weather.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

To chaos: By Newton's third law, when a massive planet exerts a force on the earth, the earth exerts an equal and opposite force on that massive planet. So both masses have the same amount of force acting on them. However, because acceleration is force divided by mass (a kid pushing a toy car can make it move a lot faster in the same amount of time than if he's pushing a cabinet), the earth ends up accelerating a lot more. That's why the earth will pull a tighter circle and the massive planet a bigger one, so that the center of gravity is closer to the massive planet.

Why people put such parodies here? one have to use general relativity to solve gravitity problems accurately.
by assuming sun is immobile one can get a more accurate result using Newtonian laws. however using General Relativity the result is the same whether you assume sun or earth is immobile.

try explaining mercury's advancing perihelion using Newtonian laws please? you can assume the sun is immobile but the result is wrong.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Why I Am A Geocentrist?
Simple,
1. Geocentrism is written in Bible
2. I'm a Catholic and Catholic Church's official position on this matter is Geocentrism.

And from what do you derive that understanding?
Edit:
Did a Google, does the discussion about modern Catholic geocentrists under the label "Catholic geocentricity" at http://www.answers.com/topic/modern-geocentrism reflect your reasoning?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Why people put such parodies here? one have to use general relativity to solve gravitity problems accurately.
by assuming sun is immobile one can get a more accurate result using Newtonian laws.

Eh?
For a two body problem one generally makes no such assumption*, my recollection is that there is no analytical solution to anything more complex than a four body problem.
Honestly I don't recall what we did when we looked at the analytical approach to a three body problem but I have a hard time believing we (or anybody else) simply assumed immobility.
*except at the very beginning of one's education or for back of the envelope type calculations.

however using General Relativity the result is the same whether you assume sun or earth is immobile.

GR assumes neither is immobile.
GR only makes sense from a frame of reference in which there is no acceleration (i.e. an inertial reference frame), and from such a reference frame neither the Earth nor the Sun is immobile.

 

[shernren]

Why people put such parodies here? one have to use general relativity to solve gravitity problems accurately.

try explaining mercury's advancing perihelion using Newtonian laws please? you can assume the sun is immobile but the result is wrong.

Yes, GR is needed to solve gravity problems exactly; however, often Newtonian mechanics will suffice to solve gravity problems accurately in cases where the orbital velocities v << c and the center of mass of the system is sufficiently far from the gravity well of either bodies so that it can be assumed to rest on flat space-time.

Note that while Mercury needs GR treatment, Newtonian mechanics as expressed in Kepler's laws do fine enough for all the other 8 (?) planets. 8/9 = 88.9% to 3 s.f., not bad for a theory centuries old.
by assuming sun is immobile one can get a more accurate result using Newtonian laws. however using General Relativity the result is the same whether you assume sun or earth is immobile.

by assuming sun is immobile one can get a more accurate result using Newtonian laws. however using General Relativity the result is the same whether you assume sun or earth is immobile.

I await a mathematical proof of this.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

It just occurred to me that in a geocentric model, since the Earth is not rotating,

Actually the rotation of the Earth and it's being stationary in space are two different issues.

In Galileo's trial the scriptural analysis of the two differed (don't remember the details, and it takes some time to dig it up online) and there is at least one online geocentrist (a conservative Catholic) who accepts that the Earth rotates, but not that it moves through space.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Eh?
For a two body problem one generally makes no such assumption*, my recollection is that there is no analytical solution to anything more complex than a four body problem.
Honestly I don't recall what we did when we looked at the analytical approach to a three body problem but I have a hard time believing we (or anybody else) simply assumed immobility.
*except at the very beginning of one's education or for back of the envelope type calculations.

GR assumes neither is immobile.
GR only makes sense from a frame of reference in which there is no acceleration (i.e. an inertial reference frame), and from such a reference frame neither the Earth nor the Sun is immobile.

GR assumes either can be considered immobile. either can be taken as an enertia frame since they both only under effects of gravity (which isn't a force in GR).

I'll not reply further on GR to you until you actually do some reading on it.

 

[ThaiDuykhang]

Yes, GR is needed to solve gravity problems exactly; however, often Newtonian mechanics will suffice to solve gravity problems accurately in cases where the orbital velocities v << c and the center of mass of the system is sufficiently far from the gravity well of either bodies so that it can be assumed to rest on flat space-time.

mercury moves much slower than light in solar system. can newtonian law explain the advancing perihelion of mercury?

Note that while Mercury needs GR treatment, Newtonian mechanics as expressed in Kepler's laws do fine enough for all the other 8 (?) planets. 8/9 = 88.9% to 3 s.f., not bad for a theory centuries old.
by assuming sun is immobile one can get a more accurate result using Newtonian laws. however using General Relativity the result is the same whether you assume sun or earth is immobile.



I await a mathematical proof of this.

No need for a mathematical proof, one of GR's assumption is all physical laws are equal, observed from an enertia frame (remember gravity isn't a force under GR). so the GR is so defined that the result of relative movements of earth and sun calculated by assuming earth is immobile and by assuming sun is immobile is equal.
Do you think GR is right? yes? then you don't need to check its assumption.