Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[Scotty99]

Hello, this is my first time posting on any science related forum, recently i have come across the idea that our entire basis of understanding in the universe may be ....lets say off lol. I am 33 years old, i didnt graduate high school (got my GED) and dropped out of college, i am not an idiot but i am not too good about putting my ideas down on paper, also not very good at punctuation i dont even know that comma was necessary! So please try not to criticize my typing or the way i put words together, im gonna try my best to put forth my thoughts.

 

So i have always been curious about how the world works, how we got here, and why are we here which i think is pretty common for a lot of people. I have tried to keep up with how progressed we have been in the fields, watched many string theory videos with brian greene as well as many lectures/debates with some of the top scientists like (im going to list people i know, maybe they are jokes in the inner circles but these are the ones visible to me) neil de'grasse tyson, lawrence krauss, michio kaku etc. Not one time have i ever saw any of these people mention geocentrism, and i come here to ask why. WIthin the last year ive comes across the idea of geocentrism, that the earth is in the center of the universe and we dont move at all, that the entire universe revolves around us (us being the center of mass of the universe). The theory (is it considered a theory, being that its been around so long?) says galileo was actually incorrect in his studying of the universe, and that maybe the bible was correct in stating we are unmoving at the center. I first came across this idea from a random youtube video i stumbled upon where a guy named robert sungenis was talking about how we got this all wrong, and he claims if you simply put the earth at the center unmoving, that we dont have to create the multiverses or dark energy/matter that is required for string theory to make sense. In his theory (again not sure if theory is the correct word) you dont even have to change anything einstein came up with, gravity works out just fine. He goes on to offer a lot of different evidence as to why this all may be true, like cosmic microwave background being pointed directly at the earth, all of the study michelson and morley did where they could not conclude the earth was moving, and a lot of other stuff that i cannot remember off the top of my head.

 

What really intrigues me about this whole deal is that i understand why its not being discussed, and it would be two fold in my eyes: (please correct me if im completely off base)

 

1. We would be embarsssed to admit we are working off a faulty groundwork, we are simply too far in to backtrack and re-do the math.

2. Religion. Clearly if the bible was right on this and galileo was wrong, what else in the bible must be taken literally?

 

I tried to understand this whole thing in my head without adding religion into it but i came to the same conclusion robert sungenis did....you cant. If we are actually in the center of the universe and it revolves around us that means we had a creator. I am in no way married to any of this, it only woke my brain up to the possibility so when replying please consider that. I am just a person looking for answers (not sure why, i guess just human nature) and so far of everything ive read that science has offered me geocentrism makes the most SENSE in my head, if not for anything but the principle of occam's razor.

 

I do know know there is a movie about this called "the principle" but i did not find out about this until after i saw a presentation mr sungenis gave that i watched on youtube, here is the original video i saw:

Part 1:

Part 2: (much more interesting one)

 

Basically what i really want to know is, these guys really seem like smart people, and a lot of the things they say make sense. Why havent i seen this discussed anywhere by mainstream scientists? Has this been completely and irrevocably dismissed as a theory? Is it possible that some of the smartest scientists in the field actually believe some of this to be true but dont dare ever mention in fear of being shunned by their peers?

 

All i know is that we dont have this figured out yet, they keep saying we are close but we keep building these massive particle accelerators and really havent found anything to prove our current theories. I know they say the bigger the better and maybe thats true, maybe we need an accelerator 10x the size of the LHC to find dark matter or energy.Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil and i dont get one sentence replies calling me a nutjob lol. This stuff just intererests me to no end, i could watch these videos on youtube endllessly (too bad not much stuff on there about geocentrism, outside of sungenis).

[ajb]

Basically what i really want to know is, these guys really seem like smart people, and a lot of the things they say make sense. Why havent i seen this discussed anywhere by mainstream scientists? Has this been completely and irrevocably dismissed as a theory?

First I have not actually watched these videos.

 

Now, the problem is that putting the Earth at the centre does not fit the data of observational cosmology in the same way as the Lambda CDM model, which is a specific model that incorporates that 'Big Bang'. Along side that it goes against the philosophy of cosmology which is that 'every place in the Universe is the same'. Well, I simply fit it here, but basically why would our galaxy be special?

 

Today the best model is of an expanding Universe and that almost by definition does not have a centre. Cosmologists would find it difficult to understand this notion in light of how we currently think if the Universe.

 

 

Is it possible that some of the smartest scientists in the field actually believe some of this to be true but dont dare ever mention in fear of being shunned by their peers?

No. If the a model that places the Earth, or really the Milky Way galaxy, at the centre of the Universe is developed that fits the data as well as the Lambda CDM model, then it would get some attention and raise some interesting questions. However, the general scientific consensus here is that no model exists.

All i know is that we dont have this figured out yet, they keep saying we are close but we keep building these massive particle accelerators and really havent found anything to prove our current theories.

What theories are you talking about? The standard model of particle physics is well-tested and agrees with nature very well. General relativity is also known to agree with nature well. The standard model of cosmology, the Lambda CDM model allows for parameters that fit our observations, including details of the CMBR.

[Scotty99]

Hey thanks for the reply, again im not entirely versed on all of this but im gonna try. The theory sungenis puts forward actually says the expanding universe fits better with us in the middle, because the universe is expanding at the same speed in every direction we look (another one of the factors he lists as evidence being in the center).

 

I am not familiar with Lambda CDM model so you will have to excuse me on that one, but if you google "axis of evil, cosmic microwave background" (i know terrible name, sounds like some conspiracy theory lol) apparently the entire thing points to a certain spot in the universe, which so happens to be our earth.

 

 

I think you missed the part about galileo where you say " Now, the problem is that putting the Earth at the centre does not fit the data of observational cosmology in the same way as the Lambda CDM model" what this theory states is we are working on an improper foundation, we need to re-think everything and the thing that gets me so worked up about this theory is that we dont have to create multiverses or dark matter for the math to work out, we just need to put the earth back in the center unmoving like people believed hundreds of years ago.

 

What theories are you talking about? The standard model of particle physics is well-tested and agrees with nature very well. General relativity is also known to agree with nature well.

 

 

Geocentrism is not at odds with general relativity, it is more to do with the unification the way i understand it. I would need to re-watch his video to be fully sure on this, but i know he stated gravity is not changed at all and the math works fine in geocentric model.

Edited February 9, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

The theory sungenis puts forward actually says the expanding universe fits better with us in the middle, because the universe is expanding at the same speed in every direction we look (another one of the factors he lists as evidence being in the center).

This fits the standard model of cosmology perfectly.

 

I am not familiar with Lambda CDM model so you will have to excuse me on that one, but if you google "axis of evil, cosmic microwave background" (i know terrible name, sounds like some conspiracy theory lol) apparently the entire thing points to a certain spot in the universe, which so happens to be our earth.

So this points to a problem that need to be solved. You should not rule out something complete because there are some observations that don't quite fit yet. For example, this anomaly could be due to some foreground contamination, some source that has yet to be identified. It is too soon to just discount the standard model of cosmology. The rest of the evidence is very supportive.

 

That said, if this axis is real, then we would have to question some of our founding principles of cosmology. Still, I would doubt this would actually place the Earth at the centre.

 

It makes me sad when you say things like "no" to my question about if its possible any scientists secretly think any of this to be true, but fear persecution if they talk on it.

I doubt there are many good scientists that question this much. There is no evidence that we are at the centre and our models seems to be consistent with all point being the 'centre'. (Mod open questions as above)

 

Im not claiming any of this to be true just something i stumbled across that made me curious. I just need to know if its been absolutely, positively, unabashedly disproven as a theory. I dont want to spend a lot of time on this if its a dead end, i just need to know where we are in our current understanding of the universe.

The standard model of cosmology for example assumes the Copernican principle. Tests of some of the details of big bang theories seem to agree with nature. For example the cosmic neutrino background, the abundance of light elements, the evolution of galaxies and so on. All these things suggest we have no privileged place in the Universe.

 

Also be aware that the makers of that film have a religious agenda.

 

I think you missed the part about galileo where you say " Now, the problem is that putting the Earth at the centre does not fit the data of observational cosmology in the same way as the Lambda CDM model" what this theory states is we are working on an improper foundation, we need to re-think everything and the thing that gets me so worked up about this theory is that we dont have to create multiverses or dark matter for the math to work out, we just need to put the earth back in the center unmoving like people believed hundreds of years ago.

Has anyone actually done the mathematics? I expect not.

 

Multiverses may or may not have much to do with cosmology. It depends on what you mean exactly here. Dark matter will still be needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies, this is an astrophysics need for dark matter and not a cosmological one.

[Scotty99]

First off im not ruling anything out lol, i am just a curious spectator that needs to consider everything before i move on.

 

Yes the movie is actually called "the principle" and has to do with the copernican principle and why sungenis believes it to be false. Again i knew nothing of this movie prior to watching those youtube videos i linked, and i agree religious motivation could be a thing here, thats what im trying to figure out. Let me say im not an athiest nor a religious person, if there is a term for being undecided that is what i am currently.

 

Much of these questions you put towards me can be answered by sungenis in those videos, i am not fully qualified. I dont fully take the cosmic radiation as proof, i dont take the michaelson morley experiments as proof, i dont take the bible as proof, nor do i take my idea of occams razor as proof.....but this subject has me so interested i had to make a thread on a science forum to try and clear things up, this is not like me lol.

[Strange]

1. We would be embarsssed to admit we are working off a faulty groundwork, we are simply too far in to backtrack and re-do the math.

2. Religion. Clearly if the bible was right on this and galileo was wrong, what else in the bible must be taken literally?

 

Neither of these have anything to do with why science has abandoned geocentric models. The first one is plainly wrong as science regularly modifies or discards theories when new evidence comes along. Sometimes this can mean overthrowing ideas that have stood for centuries.

 

Most scientists wouldn't care if something in some random religious book happened to be true or not. But if the evidence leads to a conclusion then that is where science will go.

 

Relativity theory (which overthrew centuries, or maybe millennia, of established knowledge) shows us that all motion is relative. So you could consider the Earth to be a central stationary point. And we do for a lot of purposes. Setting speed limits on roads, putting satellites into orbit, etc.

 

But any other point can be equally validly consider to be the centre. So when studying the solar system and planning space probes to other planets, a sun-centred system is used.

 

And when studying the whole galaxy, then it is convenient to consider the centre of the galaxy as a reference point.

 

That's all there is to it: convenience. It would be a bit mad, when considering the behaviour of two galaxies thousands of light years away, to insist on plotting their motions relative to the Earth. It is much simpler to consider their motion relative to each other, perhaps around their common centre of mass.

 

 

I do know know there is a movie about this called "the principle"

 

Sungenis has been grossly dishonest in making this movie. He tricked people into taking part and then edited their interviews to make it sounded as if they support his opinion. He claims to be a Catholic, but his own church rejects his views.

[studiot]

 

if you google "axis of evil, cosmic microwave background"

 

If you google

" a wacky theory"

or

"a wacky theory that fits my prejudices"

 

you get plenty of nonsense.

 

or you could just listen to ajb instead and get the facts.

Edited February 9, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

 

He goes on to offer a lot of different evidence as to why this all may be true, like cosmic microwave background being pointed directly at the earth

 

That is true. And the expanding universe makes it seem as if everything is moving away from the Earth.

 

But the same would be true of every other planet around every other star in the universe. (See how dishonest he is, telling just half the story?)

 

all of the study michelson and morley did where they could not conclude the earth was moving,

 

That is not what they concluded. The experiment was to test for the existence of a "luminiferous aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the Aether is not moving with respect to the Earth. Other experiments show that the aether is not stationary with respect to the Earth. Basically, all experiments show that the aether (which was only ever an assumption) is undetectable and therefore effectively non-existent.

[Scotty99]

Yes thats why this is so hard to talk about it seems, it all boils down to religion. He goes into great detail in these videos (which i need to watch again, clearly) about his ideas on why he believes this to be true. I just dont understand why a person would spend his entire life dedicated to something just to be tossed aside by all of his peers.

 

I know the people in the movie afterwards all said they were "tricked" into this, but if you watch some of the interviews they gave to sungenis there is no possible way they didnt know what he was talking about.

That is not what they concluded. The experiment was to test for the existence of a "luminiferous aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the Aether is not moving with respect to the Earth. Other experiments show that the aether is not stationary with respect to the Earth. Basically, all experiments show that the aether (which was only ever an assumption) is undetectable and therefore effectively non-existent.

 

 

I actually believe i misspoke on this one. Its been a while since ive watched these videos but the michaelson morley experiments were centric to his argument, i dont actually remember what conclusion he came to but i know it boiled down to the fact that we were an unmoving planet as evidenced by the aether.

 

I feel i need to re-watch the videos to get a firmer grasp on what he was saying so i can better explain his point of view, cause i cant force you guys to watch that video *(but please do if you are bored, it was endlessly entertaining for me).

[ajb]

First off im not ruling anything out lol, i am just a curious spectator that needs to consider everything before i move on.

Indeed, as a spectator it can be hard to judge what is a 'good game' and what is not without actually playing the game. It is good that you have come here to ask questions and your are for sure welcome.

 

Yes the movie is actually called "the principle" and has to do with the copernican principle and why sungenis believes it to be false. Again i knew nothing of this movie prior to watching those youtube videos i linked, and i agree religious motivation could be a thing here, thats what im trying to figure out. Let me say im not an athiest nor a religious person, if there is a term for being undecided that is what i am currently.

Sungenis is not a scientists and so you should take care in listening to what he believes on this issue.

 

Much of these questions you put towards me can be answered by sungenis in those videos, i am not fully qualified.

I would need to see the papers on cosmology that he has published.

[Strange]

The theory sungenis puts forward actually says the expanding universe fits better with us in the middle, because the universe is expanding at the same speed in every direction we look (another one of the factors he lists as evidence being in the center).

 

One thing you can conclude from the observation that recessional velocity is proportional to distance is that all objects are moving apart from each other at a speed proportional to their distance apart. This has nothing to do with science, cosmology, geocentrism, the copernican principle or anything else. It is simple geometry. You can prove it to yourself with a few drawings on paper.

 

So what Sungenis is saying is that basic geometry is wrong because it conflicts with his "religious" belief. I don't have a problem with religion, but if it is a choice between belief and reality, I'll go with reality every time.

 

 

the thing that gets me so worked up about this theory is that we dont have to create multiverses or dark matter for the math to work out, we just need to put the earth back in the center unmoving like people believed hundreds of years ago.

 

I don't see why that would be the case. The rotational speeds of galaxies would still not be explained by the mass in the galaxy. Shifting your reference point to the edge of the galaxy instead of the centre wouldn't change that. (I guess the maths would be somewhat more complex if you insisted on modelling it as rotating around the Earth, which is why we don't do it.)

 

(And no one "has to" create multiverses; they are not a part of any mainstream theory. Just speculative ideas, which would be just as valid in a geocentric model.)

 

Geocentrism is not at odds with general relativity

 

But neither is Mars-centrism, Betelgeuse-centrism or X-centrism (where X is any point in the entire universe).

I just dont understand why a person would spend his entire life dedicated to something just to be tossed aside by all of his peers.

 

If you are referring to Sungenis, then I don't know what you mean by his peers. As far as I know, his peers are a small bunch of cranks who believe in Geocentrism.

 

I know the people in the movie afterwards all said they were "tricked" into this, but if you watch some of the interviews they gave to sungenis there is no possible way they didnt know what he was talking about.

 

Oh come on. You must have seen comedy programs where interviews are edited to make people say ridiculous things.

 

I feel i need to re-watch the videos to get a firmer grasp on what he was saying so i can better explain his point of view

 

Why waste your time. Wouldn't it be more productive to actually learn some science, instead? If you are not from a scientific/mathematical background, then one approach would be to read books (or, if you insist, watch videos) on the history of science: if you can understand the reasons why different theories were rejected in favour of others over time, then it might help you get a better perspective on this.

[Scotty99]

I would need to see the papers on cosmology that he has published.

 

 

See i really dont like this line of thinking, surely there have been discoveries about our universe we take as fact today that happened by someone that did not have a book published? I am going to re-watch these videos (along with others i watched) and i will come back better prepared to have a discussion on this. What i am finding hard so far is trying to argue for this mans work BUT not be taken as someone who fully believes in it, because i dont.

 

I will say one last thing before i return later. As ive said i am not a religious person, but i have long thought of the universe as having a creator. I recently watched a debate called "the existence of nothing" which included neil degrasse, lawrence krauss, and a few others i wasnt familiar with and at the end a person asked the question, "well maybe our minds simply arent up to the task to understand what is put forth". I think all of them agreed with this, which is something i have thought for a long time. Why is the universe such that its very own nature is something we cannot comprehend? To me that clearly says we were created by something much higher than us, can you imagine if we actually knew everyhing, it would be terrible! We would have no artists, no music, no nothing that makes us human.

 

Anywho ive babbled for too long, ill be back better prepared!

[Strange]

 

See i really dont like this line of thinking, surely there have been discoveries about our universe we take as fact today that happened by someone that did not have a book published?

 

All accepted science is based on scientific papers that have been reviewed and published in reputable journals. This is how the system filters out opinions and bad science from stuff that is supported by evidence.

 

I will say one last thing before i return later. As ive said i am not a religious person, but i have long thought of the universe as having a creator.

 

I would say that makes you a religious person (but that depends on how you define "religion", which is notoriously tricky).

 

However, there is currently no way of ruling out a creator who made the universe and the laws of physics and set it running like a giant machine. And I suspect there never will be. So if that is what you want to believe, fine. But don't let it trump reality.

 

Why is the universe such that its very own nature is something we cannot comprehend?

 

Because it is very big (possibly infinitely big) and very complicated, and our brains are very small.

 

To me that clearly says we were created by something much higher than us

 

I can't see why that is a logical conclusion, but if it is what you want to believe, then go ahead.

 

, can you imagine if we actually knew everyhing, it would be terrible! We would have no artists, no music, no nothing that makes us human.

 

I don't follow that, either. If we knew everything then maybe would just have infinitely brilliant music, etc. (Your creator must be very dull with no art, music, etc. Maybe that is why it created the universe?)

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

 

Scotty99

I want to draw your attention to rule 2.7, which states (in part)

 

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

You need to post the details of the ideas you want to discuss. Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of video of a long-debunked idea is a lot to ask.

 

[Scotty99]

What i meant by that last statement is this, try and imagine we know everything literally everything in the universe, what do we have to strive for.....where is our imagination? If we knew everything, what would our songs be about? What would our fairly tales be? What would our paintings look like? What im saying is our creator meant for us never to understand these things, so we would have an imagination and a sense of wonder about it all. I can understand a lot of things, but if i try and focus on something being infinite or our universe being created out of nothing.....i cant do it! Spirituality is different from religion, you can be spiritual and not religious, and if there is a term for this id say im that.

 

Again this is really hard to talk about because at the core its almost a religious debate, but that is not where i want to take this. I will be back better prepared to have a discussion about the actual scientific stuff that sungenis has put through in his work.

[ajb]

See i really dont like this line of thinking, surely there have been discoveries about our universe we take as fact today that happened by someone that did not have a book published?

I would like to see papers that have been examined by experts in that subject, especially when the subject is not really my field of expertise. This is a rather standard attitude in science.

 

What i am finding hard so far is trying to argue for this mans work BUT not be taken as someone who fully believes in it, because i dont.

Then my advice would be not to waste too much time on this.

[Scotty99]

!

Moderator Note

 

Scotty99

I want to draw your attention to rule 2.7, which states (in part)

 

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

You need to post the details of the ideas you want to discuss. Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of video of a long-debunked idea is a lot to ask.

 

 

Seems im getting pushed away faster than i thought. Again i will ask from my original post:

 

Why havent i seen this discussed anywhere by mainstream scientists? Has this been completely and irrevocably dismissed as a theory?

 

 

Please link me something, anything with concrete evidence. Id LOVE to get off this but i CANT. The moderator says he knows for sure by the statement "Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of a long-debunked theory is a lot to ask" but i need more than this! Sorry but i just cannot take the word from a forum, i need PROOF. Link me a paper from someone, a video, a book i dont care but it has to be BULLETPROOF.

 

I understand asking them to watch all of this is kind of ridiculous, i simply wasnt prepared to have to combat bullet points from people replying to me, and thats not really something i want to do because i am not a proponent of this theory yet just CURIOUS. Again i will do a lot more research on this and be back better prepared.

[swansont]

Seems im getting pushed away faster than i thought.

 

!

Moderator Note

You're being asked to follow the rules, and there's nothing unusual about that

 

Geocentrism was tossed centuries ago, with the realization that orbits are elliptical and the development of gravitational model. This is something easily Google-able, so I assume you're familiar with that.

 

Regarding the Michelson-Morley result, a lot of people are unaware that the stationary case was ruled out by Bradley in ~1725 by the observation of stellar aberration. We know we're moving through space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

 

That's why the null result from M-M was unexpected, and why the scientists at the time didn't immediately adopt the idea that we're stationary, and why a few tried modifying the aether theory, ultimately to no avail. Light requires no aether. But modern-day crackpots miss out on this detail, and mis-interpret the results.

[Scotty99]

First off i need to apologize for a comment i made above, in fact this theory does go directly against general relativity. I have no idea how i got that one wrong lol, i must have been thinking about newton and gravity.

 

To the above comment, according to sungenis the M M experiment actually produced a result, but it wasnt null. They are saying this is the starting point for where we got it all wrong. They go on to say "The theory of relativity exists, because of the failure for 3 centuries of science to experimentally prove that the earth moves around the sun" Sungenis claims M M did report this result, and that you can easily find it in the scienticic journals of the time.

 

I have never heard of the abberation of light phenomenon, but if the M M experiments did actually produce a result (meaning, it didnt explain our movement) is the abberation of light a still valid proposition? I ask because i dont know if the abberation depends on the M M experiments to be true. (null)

[ajb]

Please link me something, anything with concrete evidence. Id LOVE to get off this but i CANT. The moderator says he knows for sure by the statement "Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of a long-debunked theory is a lot to ask" but i need more than this! Sorry but i just cannot take the word from a forum, i need PROOF. Link me a paper from someone, a video, a book i dont care but it has to be BULLETPROOF.

I don't know if I can find a particular source, this was put to bed a long time ago.

 

The problem is not that we cannot set up a coordinate system for which the Earth is at the centre of the Universe, it is that this coordinate system is not special in any way. Maybe a slightly simpler example would be to consider the solar system.

 

It is perfectly fine to define a coordinate system to describe the solar system which places the Earth at the origin. There is nothing in physics that says you cannot do this. However, two points need to be made. The first is that the Earth has no privileged position and so any point in the solar system will do, we don't need to pick a planet even, but we could equally as well pick Mars to be at the centre of our coordinate system. Secondly, these coordinate systems are not the 'simplest' to use. Because the Sun is much more massive than the planets it is sensible to define a coordinate system that places the Sun at the origin. Moreover, you can then use the symmetries of the system in that coordinate system to simplify things. For example, conservation of angular momentum of a planet is clear when we think of it as orbiting the Sun. Thus it seems natural to think of the Sun as fixed and the planets orbiting it. But again, we can pick more exotic coordinate systems such as placing the Earth at the centre, which is okay just not very natural form a physics perspective.

 

This means that placing the Earth at the centre is just a choice and nothing in the physics really depends on this choice. The argument about the centre of the solar system is a bit empty from this perspective.

 

So, in the same way it is not that we cannot think of the Milky Way as being at the centre of the Universe, we just need to pick coordinates that allow us to think that way. But this is not a privileged choice. All other galaxies can equally be thought of as being the centre. Thus, there is nothing to prove or disprove here with regards to geocentricism as a physicist would understand it; a choice of coordinates.

 

Geocentricism meaning that we have some preferred reference frame and that the Earth (or Milky Way) sits at the origin is just unfounded in modern physics. We would need some mechanism pointing to that frame. But note that we could still use other frames and they would be equally as valid.

 

The arguments for this form of geocentricism are just misunderstandings of the ability to pick coordinate systems and that none is special.

 

So, cosmological models that place the Earth as being special are not consistent with physics. It is true that we can make this choice, but nothing special can happen with this choice. This is what I meant by such models being inconsistent with the Lambda CDM model. For example, if aliens in some other galaxy measured the CMBR they would see the same thing. They would probabily initially think they are privileged, until they thought more about it.

Edited February 9, 2015 by ajb

[Scotty99]

Im sorry you wrote that all up, but as you can see above i was wrong (unbelievably lol) in saying that geocentrism is in line with general relativity.....turns out it isnt. More to come.

[ajb]

Im sorry you wrote that all up, but as you can see above i was wrong (unbelievably lol) in saying that geocentrism is in line with general relativity.....turns out it isnt. More to come.

Like I said, it depends on exactly what you mean.

[studiot]

A good up-to-date read for the semi technical is

 

A Perfect Theory

 

P G Ferreira

 

This has much interesting historical and background material as well as a developmental approcah to modern Astrophysics

[Scotty99]

Like I said, it depends on exactly what you mean.

 

With geocentrism, being at the center of the universe goes directly at odds with relativity. With relativity there are no special places in the universe. Im sure i understood this the first time i watched the video, but in my stuper i somehow mixed up relativity with gravity (newtons gravity works in geocentrism). That has to be how i messed that up.

 

Now when talking about the CMB, they list this as one of the big points of proof. They say (and ive seen this in pictures, actually) that the background shows two large planes of hot and cold (which should not be there in relativity, because again there are no special places in the universe) and that where those planes intersect is directly at the equinoxes of earth. Now should this alone be proof? Like someone said in this thread could it simply be an error of the equipment? The predictions of the CMB were that it was going to be entirely uniform, so when it came back like it did surely eyebrows had to been raised. They even elaborate on this by mentioning the tilt of the universe, and how the tilt of the CMB is exactly what was predicted by an astronomer before galileo who also predicted the universe is on a 38 degree tilt, which is what the CMB came back with.

 

I havent started the second part but that is mostly what the first is, along with the M M experiments.

[swansont]

First off i need to apologize for a comment i made above, in fact this theory does go directly against general relativity. I have no idea how i got that one wrong lol, i must have been thinking about newton and gravity.

 

To the above comment, according to sungenis the M M experiment actually produced a result, but it wasnt null. They are saying this is the starting point for where we got it all wrong. They go on to say "The theory of relativity exists, because of the failure for 3 centuries of science to experimentally prove that the earth moves around the sun" Sungenis claims M M did report this result, and that you can easily find it in the scienticic journals of the time.

 

I have never heard of the abberation of light phenomenon, but if the M M experiments did actually produce a result (meaning, it didnt explain our movement) is the abberation of light a still valid proposition? I ask because i dont know if the abberation depends on the M M experiments to be true. (null)

 

It's impossible to measure exactly zero, since there will always be experimental limitations and noise in any physical system. The initial M-M result disagreed with the expected result from aberration (0.04 fringes expected, <0.02 observed, but still consistent with zero), and subsequent, more sensitive, interferometer experiments got results closer to zero.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#Subsequent_experiments

 

We orbit the sun at 30 km/s and our speed relative to other galactic references are even larger, and the experiments up through1930 placed the upper limit of the possible speed at a few km/s. More modern experiments put it at a few cm/s.