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

[Phi for All]

I am in a crappy spot right now, i cant lie to myself but i am also depressed at the thought of knowing everything there is to know and this is probably why science is where we are at today, because a world in where we know everything isnt a very fulfilling one.

 

I hope you'll take this the right way. It's not about you, it's about your methods.

 

You start out in this thread talking about how you dropped out of school and know little about science. You then tell us you're interested in a fringe concept that's been sidelined because there are models that anyone with a science background can see are better. You have a LOT of misconceptions, but each time they're corrected ("I can't think of a reason why male human testicles are on the outside!" "It's because sperm require a lower temperature than the main body provides."), you take that data on board, but your method fails to turn it into useful information, like "Perhaps I should study what everyone else thinks is correct before becoming convinced of something I really know little about". We show you there's a whole bunch you don't know, yet you still insist that you have a "gut" feeling the geocentric model is correct. Your biases are being confirmed emotionally, because you don't understand the science intellectually.

 

You insist a creator is necessary, but can't explain intellectually why. Again, a "gut" feeling, more akin to faith than to trust. Why believe something so strongly when it has NOTHING to back it up, to support it? I feel your methods here are leading you to make very emotional decisions at a point in your life when you're having a difficult emotional time. You want something to be true rather than wanting to find out what's real. Emotion vs intellect. Both are very important, both have their place in our lives, but when it comes to science, and explanations of various phenomena, intellect is the better tool to use.

[Scotty99]

Just a few physicists ive come across that have cited the possibility of a motionless earth. Please read through all of these and tell me how have all these smart people entertained the idea of geocentrism but now it is simply brushed under the rug?

 

Albert Einstein Kyoto University 1922[1]

“…to the question whether or not the motion of the Earth in space can be made perceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that all attempts of this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward, it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result.”

 

Albert Einstein[2] “Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest…”

 

Physicist, Henrick Lorentz[3] “There was just one alternative; the earth’s true velocity through space might happen to have been nil.”

 

Physicist, Arthur Eddington[4] “The failure of the many attempts to measure terrestrially any effects of the earth’s motion…”

 

Physicist, Wolfgang Pauli[5] “We do not have and cannot have any means of discovering whether or not we are carried along in a uniform motion of translation.”

 

Physicist, Henri Poincaré[6] “A great deal of research has been carried out concerning the influence of the Earth’s movement. The results were always negative.”

 

Physicist, Henri Poincaré[7] “This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earth moves.”

 

Physicist, Albert Michelson[8] “The data [of Michelson-Morley] were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.”

 

Physicist, Bernard Jaffe[9] “We can’t feel our motion through space, nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”

 

Historian, Lincoln Barnett, foreword by Albert Einstein[10] “Thus, even now, three and a half centuries after Galileo's condemnation by the Inquisition, it is still remarkably difficult to say categorically whether the earth moves, and, if so, in what precise sense.”

 

Physicist Julian Barbour[11]"There is no planetary observation by which we on Earth can prove that the Earth is moving in an orbit around the sun."

 

Physicist, I. Bernard Cohen[12] "Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?"

 

 

Citings

[1] Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.

[2] “Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169.

[3] Lorentz’s 1886 paper, “On the Influence of the Earth’s Motion of Luminiferous Phenomena,” in A. Miller’s Albert Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity, p. 20.

[4] Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8.

[5] Wolfgang Pauli, The Theory of Relativity, 1958, p. 4.

[6] From Poincaré’s lecture titled: “L’état actuel et l’avenir de la physique mathematique,” St. Louis, Sept. 24, 1904, Scientific Monthly, April, 1956.

[7] From Poincaré’s report La science et l’hypothèse (“Science and Hypothesis”)1901, 1968, p. 182. L. Kostro’s, Einstein and the Ether, 2000, p. 30.

[8] Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125, said after his interferometer experiment did not detect the movement of ether against the Earth.

[9] Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. Jaffe adds this conclusion to the above sentence: “This, of course, was preposterous.”

[10] Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.

[11] Julian Barbour, Absolute or Relative Motion, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 226.

[12] I. Bernard Cohen, Birth of a New Physics, revised and updated, 1985, p. 78.

[13] Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54.

Also a peer reviewed paper from 2013 that shows stellar parallax can be viewed in a geocentric model and it does not prove heliocentric model:

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7129

Edited August 1, 2015 by Scotty99

[Strange]

As far as I can tell, those are all confirming what you have already been told: there is no definition of absolute rest so you can choose anything as as the centre of the universe: the tip of your nose or the red spot on Jupiter or a planet in a distant galaxy. It makes no difference: you just choose the most convenient coordinate system for what you are doing.

[ajb]

I agree with strange here. None of those quotes really seems to be about geocentricism, but rather fact that speed is relative and that no local experiment can tell if the Earth is moving or not. (Spinning is different in this context.)

[Scotty99]

lol thats the point guys! In general relativity it states there are no special spots in the universe, everything is relative. By definition geocentrism works in a relativistic theory. You have to understand that no study has EVER been done to 100% disprove a motionless earth. Relativity is working against itself here, and many argue was created to debunk a geocentric view of the cosmos.

[ajb]

In general relativity it states there are no special spots in the universe, everything is relative.

There are two statements here.

 

i) In general relativity all observers are equally valid.

ii) The cosmological principle states wroughtly that on large enough scales the Universe looks the same in all directions for all observers.

 

By definition geocentrism works in a relativistic theory.

Yes, as a choice of reference frames there is no problem here. The problem is in stating that this frame is privileged.

 

You have to understand that no study has EVER been done to 100% disprove a motionless earth.

With respect to what?

 

Relativity is working against itself here, and many argue was created to debunk a geocentric view of the cosmos.

I do not think that relativity, quite generally (so even Galilean relativity) was constructed to change cosmology. The key point is that velocities are only relative.

[swansont]

lol thats the point guys! In general relativity it states there are no special spots in the universe, everything is relative. By definition geocentrism works in a relativistic theory. You have to understand that no study has EVER been done to 100% disprove a motionless earth. Relativity is working against itself here, and many argue was created to debunk a geocentric view of the cosmos.

No, I don't think geocentrism works as a relativistic theory. What is the mechanism in geocentrism by which other bodies travel the paths that they do? In GR, we have gravity and elliptical orbits are perfectly consistent with that. If we are fixed at the center, how do distant bodies travel at speeds that must exceed c? That contradicts relativity.

[Scotty99]

1. Yes, all observers equally valid, glad we agree : )

1b. Look to CMB (cosmic microwave background, im sure you know what this means just for people new to the convo) data going back 20 years, in fact it isnt the same in all directions. Its supposed to be isotropic and homogenous but alas the data says otherwise.

 

2. Not sure what you mean on this one.

 

3. With respect to the experiments that have been done? Michaelson morley being the most well known.

 

4. Again, not sure what you are getting at. I stated relativity was working against itself in a discussion about geocentrism (both can work in relativity) and many people believe relativity was created to push the geocentric model under the rug (for various reasons ive touched on earlier in this thread).

No, I don't think geocentrism works as a relativistic theory. What is the mechanism in geocentrism by which other bodies travel the paths that they do? In GR, we have gravity and elliptical orbits are perfectly consistent with that. If we are fixed at the center, how do distant bodies travel at speeds that must exceed c? That contradicts relativity.

 

Ill just link this:

 

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions."

 

(An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

 

Pay particular attention to: "If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."

Wait a second, i take the advice of posters (and put in the effort) in this thread to make science based arguments and now i get LESS replies? Should i go back to being more emotional? Who are the people that regularly post here? What do THEY try and get out of these forums?

 

Im not trying to preach god here guys, i am merely showing that geocentrism is NOT dead and you need to open your minds to the possibility that Einstein had it wrong all along.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Scotty99

[studiot]

 

Wait a second, i take the advice of posters (and put in the effort) in this thread to make science based arguments and now i get LESS replies? Should i go back to being more emotional? Who are the people that regularly post here? What do THEY try and get out of these forums?

 

 

Since you didn't bother to respond to my first reply, why should we bother to respond to any more of yours?

[Scotty99]

 

 

Since you didn't bother to respond to my first reply, why should we bother to respond to any more of yours?

 

I went back two pages didnt see any of your posts, what was your question/comment?

[studiot]

 

I went back two pages didnt see any of your posts, what was your question/comment?

 

 

Only 2 pages?? huh!!

 

I think I gave up after my posts 7 and 23.

[Strange]

You have to understand that no study has EVER been done to 100% disprove a motionless earth.

 

"Motionless" by itself is a meaningless term, as Galileo showed.

 

many argue was created to debunk a geocentric view of the cosmos.

 

Do they? And do they have any evidence for that claim?

1. Yes, all observers equally valid, glad we agree : )

 

So geocentrism makes as much sense as Kepler 452b-centrism.

 

 

1b. Look to CMB (cosmic microwave background, im sure you know what this means just for people new to the convo) data going back 20 years, in fact it isnt the same in all directions. Its supposed to be isotropic and homogenous but alas the data says otherwise.

 

I don't know what your point is. What does this have to do with the subject? The CMB is an almost perfect black body spectrum, it is almost perfectly homogeneous, it is almost perfectly isotropic. The very tiny variations tell us something about the condictions in the early universe. (They also tell us that Earth, our galaxy, is moving relative to the CMB. So, if anything contradicts geocentrism in favour of CMB-ism)

 

2. Not sure what you mean on this one.

 

What are you referring to? Actually, I'm not sure what any of these numbered points refer to ...

 

I stated relativity was working against itself in a discussion about geocentrism

 

Relativity allows geocentrism as one possibility. So what? How is that "working against itself"?

 

many people believe relativity was created to push the geocentric model under the rug

 

So you claim. But you haven't said who these people are, why they say that or what evidence they have.

 

you need to open your minds to the possibility that Einstein had it wrong all along.

 

The evidence says otherwise. Science is always open to possibilities, but you need to provide some evidence that GR is wrong, if you want to argue against it.

 

Wait a second, i take the advice of posters (and put in the effort) in this thread to make science based arguments and now i get LESS replies? Should i go back to being more emotional? Who are the people that regularly post here? What do THEY try and get out of these forums?

 

People get bored of explaining the same thing over and over, and then being ignored. You seem unwilling to learn, and just want to push your religious beliefs. That isn't really interesting to people on a science forum.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Strange

[Scotty99]

 

"Motionless" by itself is a meaningless term, as Galileo showed.

 

 

Do they? And do they have any evidence for that claim?

 

1.Anyone who has received a degree in physics recently knows every single argument galileo has presented has been abandoned by physics (and was also false at the time). Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

 

2. Have you ever heard of a man called giordano bruno? If not look him up. He is the current martyr for the copernican model among other things. He was burned at the stake february 17 1600 for crimes including but not limited to :

• holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith and speaking against it and its ministers;
• holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about the Trinity, divinity of Christ, and Incarnation;
• holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith pertaining to Jesus as Christ;
• holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith regarding the virginity of Mary, mother of Jesus;
• holding opinions contrary to the Catholic faith about both Transubstantiation and Mass;
• claiming the existence of a plurality of worlds and their eternity;
• believing in metempsychosis and in the transmigration of the human soul into brutes;
• dealing in magics and divination.

 

These two men are intertwined in history. Galileo wrote a letter just before his death to a man named Francesco Rinuccini. In this letter, actually nevermind i will just quote it from the wiki page:

 

In his letter, Rinuccini first expressed great satisfaction at having heard about some observations of small motions in the fixed stars, which he regarded as providing a conclusive argument in favour of the Copernican system. He then asked Galileo to resolve a difficulty he had in answering one of the then common arguments against that system. Galileo began his reply with an apparent repudiation of the Copernican system, but then went on to reject Ptolemaic and Aristotelian cosmology as "even more fallacious and erroneous", to rebut the argument which had baffled Rinuccini, and to acknowledge that if the observations reported in his letter were accurate, they would imply a movement of the Earth "different from any that could be attributed to it" if it were assumed to be located at the centre of the Universe.

[Strange]

1.Anyone who has received a degree in physics recently knows every single argument galileo has presented has been abandoned by physics (and was also false at the time). Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

 

As Lorentz invariance has been tested to incredible levels of accuracy, this is obviously not true. Why make blatently dishonest statements like this?

 

2. Have you ever heard of a man called giordano bruno?

 

Only because he is a favourite of physics cranks on the Internet.

So no evidence to show GR is wrong then? So we can safely ignore that claim.

 

And no evidence of people claiming that relativity was developed to disprove geocentrism? So we can safely ignore that claim as well.

 

Anything else?

[Scotty99]

1.What does lorentz covariance have to do with galileo? Do you mean lorentz transformation?

 

2. Maybe you should read up a bit on him, very interesting guy.

[studiot]

 

the Kinks 1965

 

Tired of waiting for you

 

 

[Strange]

1.What does lorentz covariance have to do with galileo? Do you mean lorentz transformation?

 

Sigh. So why should we take your opinions on physics seriously?

 

2. Maybe you should read up a bit on him, very interesting guy.

 

Because so many crackpots bring him up, I have. Not that interesting (unless your are really interested in the obscure details of different Christian heresies).

[Scotty99]

1. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, i only know what i have researched in the past few months to be more equipped to have a logical conversation on this topic. I first started this post with limited knowledge and a gut feeling on the matter, i have come to realize to have a discussion on a forum like this one i need to have at least a common basis of understanding to continue.

 

Now, instead of saying things like "sigh" how about you elaborate on why you think i went wrong on the topic at hand? From my finding lorentz covariance is not directly tied in any way to galileo.

 

2. I am not a proponent of giordano bruno, he was an absolute nutcase. Geocentrists do not claim this man, string theorists do.

[Strange]

 

From my finding lorentz covariance is not directly tied in any way to galileo.

 

Of course it is.

"Lorentz symmetry, the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"

http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29224

 

 

2. I am not a proponent of giordano bruno, he was an absolute nutcase. Geocentrists do not claim this man, string theorists do.

 

Really? Has he any peer-reviewed publications on the subject we should read?

[ajb]

1.Anyone who has received a degree in physics recently knows every single argument galileo has presented has been abandoned by physics (and was also false at the time). Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

That is news to me.

 

Galilean relativity is at the heart of Newtonian mechanics, and as Newtonian mechanics is a good model of nature taking into account the domain of applicability. I therefore reject you claim.

 

It is true that Einsteinian relativity cover a wider range of phenomena, but this does not rule Newtonian mechanics 'wrong'.

[Scotty99]

1. I still dont see the correlation between the two men. Are you asserting lorentz symmetry is the same as galilean invariance?

 

Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames

 

Lorentz symmetry, named for Hendrik Lorentz, is "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"

 

These are two different things.

 

2. Again, im not sure where you are going with this. I said in a post above i am NOT a proponent of this man, he was an imbecile that gained accord long after he died.

[Strange]

Your list of unsupported claims is getting longer:

 

1. "GR is wrong." No evidence provided.

 

2. "Relativity was developed to disprove geocentrism." No evidence.

 

3. "Everything Galileo said is wrong." No evidence.

 

4. "A medieval priest invented string theory." No evidence.

(I may be exaggerating that one. I have no idea what you are really claiming.)

 

What next? The Earth is flat? I mean, it makes sense, right?

[studiot]

 

scotty99. 2015

 

1. I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, i only know what i have researched in the past few months to be more equipped to have a logical conversation on this topic. I first started this post with limited knowledge and a gut feeling on the matter, i have come to realize to have a discussion on a forum like this one i need to have at least a common basis of understanding to continue.

 

 

 

Which was why I posted a reading reference to some newly published stuff that actually gave consideration to your questions and acknowledged the known deficiencies in the General Theory of Relativity.

 

But you ignored it

 

 

Paul Simon 1970

 

Still, a man hears what he wants to hear

And disregards the rest

 

 

Edited August 1, 2015 by studiot

[Strange]

1. I still dont see the correlation between the two men. Are you asserting lorentz symmetry is the same as galilean invariance?

 

Galilean invariance or Galilean relativity states that the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames

 

Lorentz symmetry, named for Hendrik Lorentz, is "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space"

 

These are two different things.

 

How exactly do they differ? (Apart from the fact that Lorentz invariance is more general because it takes into account what we now know about special relativity.)

[ajb]

These are two different things.

Of course the two are actually closely related, but different.

 

Anyway, either form of relativity tells you that velocities are relative. Because of this it is difficult to understand any physics that used absolute motion; this it is hard to understand any physics that really states the Earth (or solar system) is at absolute rest.)