N C More says:

There is no difference between a model (or coordinate transform) and what you see on those sites. It is assumed by the people who maintain those sites (as it has been for most of the world for the last few hundred years) that the earth and planets orbit the sun. That is why they model it that way. It really proves nothing. In the Tycho Brahe type system, the planets revolve around the sun, too, but the sun revolves around the earth.

Like I said before, evidence for GR is evidence against Geocentrism.

This is precisely why...
If they're really trying to disprove geocentricity then you're right, their arguments don't hold, according to current theory any frame of reference can be considered to be stationary. But usually I see these arguments made against Geocentricity. If you doubt GR and relativism and want to have an absolute physics where it can be said that the earth frame really is stationary then you do have the problem of explaining the motions of all the bodies in the universe. Newtons laws work pretty well for any system of bodies if you consider the center of gravity to be stationary, the center of gravity of the solor system is most definitely not the earth though. And in a Newtonian universe, the earth is observed to move and rotate.

Using GR to support geocentricity and then denying GR to allow an absolute frame is contradictory. You can't have it both ways.

That would be very interesting indeed. But as this is a GR effect, for a new theory to not be falsified before it was even published, it would need to agree with GR in every way so far tested. A theory that did this while retaining absolute space and time would be a very tall order indeed.

__________________
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.

Ockham's Razor is a logical tool, not one that can be driven by religion.

We've had this over and over again on these forums. GR was not simply invented to explain away the Michelson-Morley result. It explains much more than that. It makes dozens of predictions which are routinely confirmed.

So Geocentrism is your comfort-blanket. Well, go ahead. But it's not supported any more than as-yet-undiscovered-distant-planet-centrism. Regarding Tegmark, If I stand in a field in a thick fog, I can see perhaps 30 feet in all directions before my vision is obscured. It does not make me the centre of the fog, or the centre of the field.

How far away do you think the Moon is?

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

You did, in this post.
I did not say you did. The qualifications that I was talking about were the ones that you personally were using to accept or reject models.

I didn't "reject" it but rather pointed out the derivation of the colloquialism, "sun rise and sun set". Which, BTW, is correct. Historically people did embrace geocentrism and the language reflected that belief. By using this phrase as "common language" I did not see JPL as actually embracing a geocentric model per say. I can't seem to find any statements therein that say the Sun is orbiting the Earth.

As to what criteria I'm personally using? Let's just say I'm content to throw in my lot with NASA and Cornell's astronomy department. I usually tend to go with a trusted expert opinion. Just a peculiar trait of mine, I guess.

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

Of course most Tychonian apologists neglect the fact that the Sun orbits the Earth-Moon barycenter, not the Earth itself. In fact, the only things in this system that directly orbit the Earth are the Moon and our artificial satellites. Not a very geocentric system at all!

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

A question for trth_skr:

Do you believe that the Bible ought to have any weight at all as scientific evidence for a particular cosmological model?

Fact? could you elaborate? Thanks, CM

Excellently phrased question. A follow-up (or, perhaps, the same question rephrased):

Assuming trth_skr's characterization of Einstein's dilema is correct (I'm aware of its shortcomings...) What basis would Einstein have for choosing #1?

I wasn't aware that he "chose" at all but rather stated that there is no preferred frame of reference. Am I mistaken in this thinking?

BTW, here's an interesting article from The Skeptic Tank. Just to let everyone know, The Skeptic Tank is well, very skeptical and not known for diplomacy, ie...extremely blunt (some would go so far as to call it rude).

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

The BA frowns upon links to sites with strong language, but I don't follow the logic either. The passage which starts "here's the train wreck" and ends with "good grief" doesn't do much but present the ICR point of view, and the "argument" against it is mostly contained in the "good grief".

Well, I just re-read the article and couldn't find any "dirty language" therein. I said that the Skeptic Tank was blunt and rather rude but I felt the author pointed out some of the real short comings when one tries to utilize science to "prove" faith based beliefs. We see the other side of this argument here all the time, just felt the flip side should have some "air time" so to speak.

However, if the BA wants to remove the link then obviously he can.

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

Sorry about that, my mistake. I must have misread "frocking"

On the other hand, I think my point--that he avoids the issue--between the "train wreck" and "good grief" is a good one.

Yorkshireman says:

True, but after the fog lifts I can see what's beyond the 30'. Tegmark's statement about what lies beyond is only by faith in a theory.

Tom Ames asks:

question for trth_skr:

Not in the context of strictly physical roof. I am not the one who brought it up. Someone asked if it was apart of my "motivation" to study the issue. I gave an honest reply.

rus_watters asks:

See this message:

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/vi...=392963#392963

Einstein and most all modern scientists (documented here) will automatically dismiss any observation of earth as a center as a matter of dogma.

I said:

I want to say, also, this is not meant to be an attack on Tegmark. Rather it is a common occurence where theories are invlolved. Very few people would automatically consider geo or Geocentrism.

So since the math of solar system dynamics and orbits is simpler in a heliocetnric frame, God must have not wanted the Earth at the center of the universe, by this rationale.

So what you're really wary about is the gauge invariance of electromagnetism. This is curious, because these concepts are what allow for you to, for example, have a computer screen.

Truth Seeker hasn't read the biography obviously. The truth is, Einstein didn't hear about M-M until well after the fact and then wasn't really surprised by them at all, sort of asking people "what did you expect"?

By the way if you buy into luminiferous aether, you'd have to have a pretty strangely coincident frame for it. If the result isn't null and luminiferous aether exists, then geocentricity is false absolutely since the aether frame of rest would be different from that of the Earth's.

Just a little interesting paradox in geocentric logic that gets missed.

And interesting idea, but one that's a bit too anti-pragmatic for my liking. If redshifts are not measuring sticks then why do redshift dependent effects look like measuring sticks? Why do we see Lyman-alpha forests? Why do we see structure behave in the way it does? Why the finger of God effect? Why redshift structure distortion? Why the results of time dilations associated with SN-light curves?

To adequately come up with a new and alternative explanation for redshifts, one has to answer these questions, not just trumpet skepticism.