what about SeanF's finding, back on page one?

I don't think "As the sun rises . . . and sets . . ." exactly qualifies as a solar system model. Remember, the way thoughts are conveyed via language is very ancient.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

what are the qualifications? or is that a personal belief?

I do teach English as a second language and I do know that many colloquialisms are derived from historical language (the roots of the English language are very old). I do not know for certain regarding this particular saying but it seems highly reasonable that this saying comes from a time when people actually did believe that the sun moved across the heavens.

However, if you contest that NASA actually does adhere to a model where the Sun is in motion and the Earth is static then I'd be very interested in seeing this model!

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

N C More wrote:

From Google (the great seer):

It is not "arcane". GR is formulated specifically with an acentric model of the universe. Therefor, it MUST reject any idea of an actual real center. IF we had a complete model of the universe, we could transform coordinates to any point in that universe, and describe the observations (kinetics) and dynamics (forces) seen / felt at that point. We could pick a fixed earth. All observations would be what we see (they must be, this is more basic than GR or SR, it is mathematics). All forces would be describable as coming from the rest of the universe (e.g., Thirring).

This does not prove Geocentricity, but says that if the assumption of GR is wrong, andd the earth actually is a center, GR itself cannot say it is not, except by pointing to its assumptions.

That being said, GR cannot and has not disproved Geocentrism (and cannot by virtues of its own principles).

N C More says:

JPL and all these university systems depend on GR. They have no independent observations from an absolute reference frame to validate their preferred heliocentric model. They prefer the heliocentric system because they see it as simple, and it works. In reality a Geocentric system satisfies this sometimes, also. As amazing as it sounds, they have not "proven" the heliocentric system.

In reality, when NASA launcehs interplanetary probes, they used a fixed sun coordinate transformation. When they launch earth orbiting probes, they use a fixed earth coordinate transformation.

NASA and JPL are more like engineers than cosmologists (most of them). They use practical considerations to determine which coordinate system will lead to the mathematically simplest solution, just as engineers use many approximations (e.g., Newtonian mechanics), which work fine on a non-cosmological scale.

N C More says:

As explained above, I am not trying to use GR to prove Geocentrism. I am just trying to point out, that in absence the assumption of acentricity in the universe, Geocentrism is not disproven by any fact. We really do not know if even the heliocentric solar system is correct without resorting to disproven simplicity arguments.

I am studying the Biblical and Church side of the issue also. The literal Bible does appear to be Geocentric, and te Church Fathers were all Geocentrists (even arguing against the Greeks who supported heliocentrism long before Corpenicus). This does give me a reason to consider Geocentrism, yes, but if there were a clear reason to reject it I would consider that, also. So far, I cannot see one, so I see no reason to reject Geocentrism outright. I am finding that we know so much, much less about the cosmos than I have believed before studying this issue, so much so that I am actually quite shocked.

N C More finishes:

Hope this helps.

N C More ofers:

http://www.commlinx.com.au/Datum%20T...scription.html

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gc...if/ecefxyz.gif

http://www.wgs84.com/wgs84/wgs84.htm

N C More:

http://alpha.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/die...Transform.html

I believe some of these also stop rotation of the earth (unlike the WGS84).

Obviously, these are all coordinate transforms, and are not posted to prove Geocentrism.

And that doesn't make sense. What is meant by "center"? How can there be an infinite number of "centers"? How can there be a center in the observable universe? My impression is that this is just another way of saying the same thing (no preferred reference frame) with controversial and misleading terminology.

Yes, if the subject was "Thinking about Sednacentrism" we would at least know that the Earth wasn't being singled out as something special.

I'm not focused on GR, but if someone says accepted theory and observation are compatible with Geocentrism, that's not correct. If that isn't what they mean, fine, but it should be clearly stated.

The Heliocentric solar system model is a useful approximation for the solar system, but let's be clear that it is no more accurate to speak of a Heliocentric universe as a Geocentric universe. Just leave the word "center" out of the discussion and you'll be much happier ... :wink:

I didn't say that such models didn't exist but rather if NASA actually adheres to any such model.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Are you saying that you agree that there is no physical evidence against Geocentrism?
I know for a fact that NASA doesn't adhere to a heliocentric system.

Remember, I was talking about a heliocentric model for the solar system such as the one shown on the JPL site. I'm also certain that NASA doesn't adhere to the idea that our Sun is the static center of the universe.

Too many word games here for my taste.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Agreed!

Tell me about it.

Speaking of which ... ATP, is it possible for you to provide a straight answer? Could you possibly stop the out of context quoting? Note the immediately preceding comments I made in reference to "geocentrism with a small 'g'":

For my part: No, as I defined Geocentrism, it is not compatible with physical evidence. There is no evidence that the accessible universe has a center or can have a center. The Earth is not at such a center.

At this point, I think "geocentrism with a small 'g'" is being used to mean something completely different from what is implied.

Van Rijn Says:

Most of this was collected by Robert Sungenis, author of the upcoming book, "Galileo was Wrong". It is considered controversial, and many people believe they have alternate explanations. (stating up front).
See www.catholicintl.com for more details.

OBSERVATIONS INDICATING EARTH AS THE CENTER

Red Shift Quantization:

P.S. the quote from Tegmark is available at http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/wmap3.html

I am not claiming Mark Tegmark believes in Geocentrism. After the above quote, he states:

Clearly a statement of his faith in the Big Bang (not an observation). Some claim the same effect for resolving the Corpenican dilemna.

Ok, I've just read this whole thread 3 times. Where in the world is this going?

And could someone explain to me what this passage "laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star" in the post above means? It's in the Red Shift Quantization section.

I didn't know that there was such things a atomic spieces. Execept for Godzilla of course.

Totally lost here.

Metricyard says:

Exactly! That is what a lot of scientists said when Varshni tried back tracking on the observation which appeared to put earth at the center of the universe.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Yes, of course.
?? this is a serious charge, I hope you can explain it.
There is no evidence against it, that's the point. That's why general relativity is said to be valid, yet, in the large picture.

Um, that's not distinguishing between frames.

Right, so geocentrists deny GR. Therefore they should not refer to it to back up their arguments.

Ockham's razor has worked historically in science. See any science philosophy text. The simplest idea is always the best one to use until you can show a more complex one correct. Since you can't show geocentrism correct, it is not the best idea to use.

Please, if you can point to a theory that fails the above, tell me about it.

You cannot disprove what has not been proved. Disprove my theory that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.

At last, we have your agenda. It only took three pages to get to it.

Now, can you anwer these please:

Do you believe that GR is the best explanation of physics to date, or not?
Do you believe that the Earth is a preferred reference frame for the whole universe?
How do you reconcile these two?
If so, why Earth? Instead of, say, an as-yet undiscovered planet orbiting a average star in a galaxy somewhere in the Virgo cluster?

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

But this is quite different to saying that GR is compatible with Geocentrism. If, as you say, GR assumes there can be no meaningful center then all the evidence in favour of GR is evidence in favour of its assumptions and is therefore evidence against Geocentrism. For there to even be any meanning to "the center of the universe" GR would have to be falsified.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Finally, something that really makes sense. Thanks, worzel


As for this:

I'm quite aware that I'm not highly educated in the areas of physics and cosmology. However, as worzel just pointed out clear, straightforward, informative statements can go a long way in making concepts understood.

A perfect example of this is Jay Utah. Jay's Clavius site is very "user friendly" and if you don't understand something he'll E-mail you and try to clear things up (I know this for a fact). Maksutov's Capella example in the last geocentrism thread was highly informative as well and he's more than happy to try and make his points very clear.

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)? Now, I'm not talking about a heliocentric model of the universe here, I think I've made that very clear. I'm not arguing against GR and I'm not "pro" heliocentrism (or any other model of the solar system for that matter). I'd just like an explanation for the model that I see JPL and Cornell Univ.(and others) using. If no one knows the answer to this then just up and say so and I'll take my "hammer" and depart.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

My take on this - it's just plain easier to understand the heliocentric model, with planets moving in clearly defined ellipses round the Sun. Given the choice of the conventional heliocentric solar system diagram, and some of the alternatives, which seems more elegant and simpler to understand? Which is more easily expressible through mathematics?

I'd love to see the famous Voyager1/2 flight path diagram transformed into an Earth-centric Solar System. I suspect it would make me dizzy!

__________________
"We need rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

It seems that the explanation is probably just an application of Occam's razor. From your link I can see that the conventional model is far simpler in design and understanding. As far as mathematics, perhaps Maksutov can answer that one but I suspect it's the same answer.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

Agreed. Given that there aren't any massive bodies close enough to the solar system for us to notice their tidal effects, we can pretty much treat the solor system as a closed system and ignore everything else. The frame of reference that makes most sense to use would be the one where Netwons laws are most accurate (because they're easier). That would be the one where the center of gravity is stationary.

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

And it would be nice if the conversations were straightforward, and direct, instead of tossing off accusations of word games. Sometimes, the questions aren't so clear either.
You've been shown various examples, but you've rejected them as not qualified. It's not easy to understand someone else's personal qualifications, without an open dialogue from both sides.
Right. So, in other words, all other non-heliocentric models are not qualified. After all, "helio" means "solar" so when you ask why all the solar systems are heliocentric, you are essentially forcing the answer. That's not fair when the issue is the use of other reference frames in general--and the use of other reference frames is widespread. What point is there in asking "why is a sun model used for the sun system?"

Because the center of mass/momentum frame is the one chosen in most of physics as being the most useful. The question isn't really an astronomy question, it's a math question. The mathematics of the center of mass/momentum frame is easier to handle than the others. For the solar system, that frame is the heliocentric model.

As to why you don't see the geocentric model, you do! It's shown in most astronomy texts under Ptolemy. Ptolemy's model, with careful additions, can fully describe the observed kinematics of the solar system (but not the dynamics). The geocentric model is seen all the time in the form of sky-charts as well.

I'm not rejecting any examples as I'm not qualified to make such a determination. This doesn't change the fact that when I go to JPL or to Cornell University they are using a "sun centered" (if that's the proper description then I'm happy to use it) model for the solar system. Also, I wasn't aware that one needed to post "qualifications" here in order to ask questions or engage in dialogue but I'll be glad to oblige. I have a BS in Biology and a Masters in Education. I think this qualifies me as "literate" but obviously not a expert in physics or cosmology.

It's now a moot point as Yorkshireman has given an answer that satisfies what I have observed on JPL and other sites.

__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!

I don't remember anyone saying you do, I'd better shutup if that's the case

__________________
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand ternary, those who don't, and those waiting for a bus.
If logic doesn't work, then surely it does.

Yorkshireman says:

True. What has been proven? There is a sun- we can observe it. It appears to be revolving around the earth. Other theories say, no, the earth is revolving (and translating). The cornerstone of our cosmology says neither is true or false. Using simplicity arguments only, most people choose the latter (heliocentric). I would posit that if God wanted the earth at the center of the universe, Okham's Razor would have to choose the Geocentric situation. But that is philosophising.


Yorkshireman asks:

I am wary of the postulates of acentrism and constant speed of light. Since motives seem to be an issue, Einstein's biographer (Einstein, Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark) indicates that Einstein [incorrectly] interpreted the results of the Michelson Morley experiments as null (there were actually some small positve resuls- less than expected). He was faced with two choices (similar to Varshni w/ quantization of redshifts, the Corpenican dilemnna, etc.):

1. Accept the earth was standing still (implying geocentrism)
2. Eliminate aether (and thus an absolute reference frame).

He chose the latter. Now we have relativity (no absolutes). We cannot even say the solar system is helio or geocentric in a real way. The funny thing is that modern science has snuck aether back in again- dark matter, dark energy, space foam, quintressence... Is the absolute around the corner again? Another funny thing is modern science is trying to posit the CMB as an absolute reference (inertial reference). Scientists really want an absolute to measure from.

Yorkshire asks:

I believe it is a possibililty that the earth is the physical center of the universe.

He asks:

I think I already explained that I am trying to point out what a pickle relativity has gotten us into. I guess it makes it possible to model the cosmos, but it limits what we can say about it. I also wanted to point out that Geocentrism has not been eliminated as a real possibility by current science, precisely because based on its own rules, it cannot. The Lense-Thirring effect (frame dragging) offers areal (though relativistic) explanation for a Geocentric universe (see the opening messagfe of this thread); though because I am suspicous of the foundations of GR, I cannot hang my hat on it. I wonder if Lense-Thirring could be reformulated without GR?

He asks:

I am motivated (oh my God- motivation) by my beliefs to look in the Geocentric direction and see if it is possible. Observations do support it; though they can be explained away, but not with other observations, only with more [of the same] theory.

When Max Tegmark says he sees the earth in the center of the universe, this is an observation. When he says, but if we could see further we would see some other effect of the big bang, he is stating his faith in a theory. What if the universe is no where as big as scientists estimate? What if redshift is not the measuring stick scientists take it to be? These points are and can all be contested. The biggest issue is really relativism or the existence of an absolute (earth and / or aether). We have chosen relativism for the last 100 years. Would you in any way be suprised if that changed in the next? I wouldn't.

Astronomy says:

Yes, and a fixed earth model is often used to launch earth orbit sattelites (i.e., GPS). Obviously for interplanetary launches, one would want a planet centric or solar centric model.