Quartermain says:
Quote:
|
The geocentric frame is an illusion. We know this because all points in space are equally applicable to the interpretation of a geocentric frame-of-reference. ...That's WHY we use the term "frame". It's a frame of reference, a point of view, a unique perspective based on location, rotation and velocity.
|
I have said not much more than this in the context of the quote. I do not accept the illusion allusion though.
What I originally said after the quote is:
Quote:
|
According to GR, we cannot distinguish between a geo or helio / acentric system. The forces require a different formulation, and the universe would need to be configured to support geocentrism, but this can not be ruled out by any evidence we have at this point.
|
Quartermain continues:
Quote:
|
The frame described in Geocentrism (the theory that Earth is at the physical center of the universe) DOES EXIST! But only as one of an infinite number of ... frames.
|
per GR, this is correct. GR foundationally disallows centers (though today scientists are looking for "preferred frames", probably because acentrism is hard).
Quote:
|
...Preferred frames are in direct contradiction with every day observations.
|
Scientists want to make the CMB a preferred frame.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
So yes, Science has indeed established which model is correct. The Acentric model of the universe and Heliocentric solar system.
|
Science has stated its preference for a heliocentric solar system within the postulated acentric universe.
Quartermain Cont.:
Quote:
|
The universe has infinite geocentric frames and you cannot establish which one is preferred. If the universe has infinite centers then another way of interpreting that is that the universe has no center at all.
|
And this is where the underlying assumptions of GR leave you.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
Any theory that requires a center (such as Geocentrism) is wrong by default of the fact that we cannot establish a center.
|
Because the assumptions (the foundational structure of all your proofs) have excluded the possibility of having a center. This does not prove a center may not exist.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
It may not mean that the particular frame-of-reference doesn't exist, or can't exist along with other frames. What it does mean is that no matter what path of logic you use to legitimize the theory of Geocentrism, you're left with the unescapable result of validating ALL frames.
|
I was not using this path to legitimize Geocentrism. I do not need to legitimize it, and GR based science can only dismiss it by pointing to its assumptions. I am not aying that someday empirical observations may not be able to dismiss it (or prove it), but this has not yet occured to my knowledge.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
Therefore the universe must be Acentric and we are left with two equally valid possibilities... either nothing exists at the center of the universe, or *everything* exists at the center of the universe.
|
Per the assumptions opf GR, but not necassarily reality.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
And as it just so happens the latter possibility agrees with a very popular theory describing the birth of the Universe.
|
Popular, yes. Correct, TBD.
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
On a side note: The more of these sorts of philosophical arguments I read the more I understand that science is as much a test of will and perseverance as it is the gathering of objective evidence.
|
Translation: science is 50% dogma and 50% gathering proof to maintain the dogma?
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
This particular debate for example has been successfully argued against for litterally hundreds of years and yet people still continue to bring it up and debate it.
|
Maybe because there is some substance to it?
Quartermain cont.:
Quote:
|
It's not necessary to understand why. But it is necessary for real science to persevere and not give up on such debates because if history is any indication I expect people will continue to argue in favor of theories like Geocentrism for centuries to come.
|
Even against large bodies of opinion...
You are right about science and philosophy. They cannot be seperated. Not even "real science".