If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 04:23 PM
trth_skr's Avatar
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: center of the universe
Posts: 154
Default Thinking About Geocentrism some more

As stated by Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

Quote:
...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'. This wiould mean we use a system of reference rigidly fixed to the earth in which all the stars are performing a rotational motion with the same angular velocity around the earth's axis...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right.
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.
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 04:29 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is online now
Vulcan Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 23,997
Default

This doesn't sound like news to me.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 04:42 PM
A Thousand Pardons's Avatar
A Thousand Pardons A Thousand Pardons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,955
Default Re: Thinking About Geocentrism some more

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
As stated by Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
Quote:
Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right.
Why not get it from the horse's mouth: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 04:45 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

I like the frame in which the universe revolves around me, personally.
__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:05 PM
trth_skr's Avatar
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: center of the universe
Posts: 154
Default

Nice Quote (A Thousand Pardons):

Quote:
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS."
There are many others from other disrtinguished scientists, but I particularly like Born's because he also offers Thirring in the same quote to give some physicality to it.

I am amazed at how many people try and disprove geocentricity using abberation, parallax, and other observations, as though these would not be the same in a geocentric system. They basically have to be the same. A coordinate transform does not change relative observations (nor does it prove the matter, of course).

In another part of your link, you say:

Quote:
It is quite possible that general relativity is wrong and there is a preferred reference frame. Personally, I doubt that it is the geocentric frame, but I am reserving judgement until we find evidence of a preferred frame.
What is your view of those who say the CMB is a preferred reference frame?
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:10 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
I am amazed at how many people try and disprove geocentricity using abberation, parallax, and other observations, as though these would not be the same in a geocentric system. They basically have to be the same. A coordinate transform does not change relative observations (nor does it prove the matter, of course).
Abberation, parallax, and other observations are not used to show that there is no relative frame of rest for the Earth. They're used to show that there is no absolute frame of rest for the Earth.

There's a huge difference in saying that only the g/Geocentric frame is valid and all frames are valid.


Edited because I'm incapable of conveying meaning today.
__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:24 PM
A Thousand Pardons's Avatar
A Thousand Pardons A Thousand Pardons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ut
There's a huge difference in saying that the g/Geocentric frame is valid and all frames are valid.
I disagree. I think the huge difference comes into play when one says "the geocentric reference frame is the only valid frame". After all, if all reference frames are valid, then surely the geocentric one is also valid.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:26 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

That's what I, I guess unsuccessfully, tried to say. I suppose I forgot an "only" in there.
__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:28 PM
A Thousand Pardons's Avatar
A Thousand Pardons A Thousand Pardons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
What is your view of those who say the CMB is a preferred reference frame?
Not as preferred reference frame, necessarily. After all, to use the CMB to construct such a frame, we create a frame in which the CMB is homogenous--but that is not entirely possible.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:37 PM
Demigrog's Avatar
Demigrog Demigrog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
What is your view of those who say the CMB is a preferred reference frame?
Not as preferred reference frame, necessarily. After all, to use the CMB to construct such a frame, we create a frame in which the CMB is homogenous--but that is not entirely possible.
Well, the "preferred" frame would be one where the dipole anisotropy in the CMB is zeroed; the other variations in the CMB wouldn't be relevant.

I asked a few times on geocentrism threads, but nobody answered: how do geocentrists explain the dipole anisotropy in the CMB anyway?
__________________
Do try not to take me too seriously.
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 05:39 PM
A Thousand Pardons's Avatar
A Thousand Pardons A Thousand Pardons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Demigrog
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
What is your view of those who say the CMB is a preferred reference frame?
Not as preferred reference frame, necessarily. After all, to use the CMB to construct such a frame, we create a frame in which the CMB is homogenous--but that is not entirely possible.
Well, the "preferred" frame would be one where the dipole anisotropy in the CMB is zeroed; the other variations in the CMB wouldn't be relevant.
Except to indicate that variation does occur.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 07:09 PM
trth_skr's Avatar
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: center of the universe
Posts: 154
Default

Demigrog asks:

Quote:
I asked a few times on geocentrism threads, but nobody answered: how do geocentrists explain the dipole anisotropy in the CMB anyway?
I am not clear on where all the measurements took place (some in space some on earth). In either case, when taking the measurements / launching the vehicles, one makes an assuption that the earth is translating and rotating.One then makes an assumption about the final configuration relative to a "fixed" star system. The dipole isotropy is removed by transforming out these assumptions. According to the Einstein's equivalence principle (the basis of the Born quote in the initial message), all reference frames are valid, so if one assumed what I said, it equally could be the case that the earth is staionary and the universe is spinning. Presumably in this case this would include the CMB rotating. In fact the experiments were likely all done on a geostationary basis anyway!
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 07:16 PM
Van Rijn's Avatar
Van Rijn Van Rijn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ut
There's a huge difference in saying that the g/Geocentric frame is valid and all frames are valid.
I disagree. I think the huge difference comes into play when one says "the geocentric reference frame is the only valid frame". After all, if all reference frames are valid, then surely the geocentric one is also valid.
And there we get to the center of the problem: What is your definition of "geocentric"?
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 07:55 PM
N C More's Avatar
N C More N C More is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,287
Default

I can't help but notice that JPL does not seem to be showing a geocentric (or any other planet as the center for that matter) in the solar system model on their site.

Quote:
JPL's solar system dynamics WWW site provides information related to all known bodies in orbit around the sun. This site is maintained by the Solar System Dynamics Group of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
(emphasis mine)
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 08:21 PM
A Thousand Pardons's Avatar
A Thousand Pardons A Thousand Pardons is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: NC, USA
Posts: 2,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by N C More
I can't help but notice that JPL does not seem to be showing a geocentric (or any other planet as the center for that matter) in the solar system model on their site.

Quote:
JPL's solar system dynamics WWW site provides information related to all known bodies in orbit around the sun. This site is maintained by the Solar System Dynamics Group of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
(emphasis mine)
I know I saw somewhere there where the Sun rose this morning, but I'll be d*nged if I can find it again.
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 08:29 PM
N C More's Avatar
N C More N C More is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
I know I saw somewhere there where the Sun rose this morning, but I'll be d*nged if I can find it again.
Was this from a mainstream science site? (Last I checked JPL was considered pretty "mainstream").
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 09:30 PM
trth_skr's Avatar
trth_skr trth_skr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: center of the universe
Posts: 154
Default

N C More wrote (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Was this from a mainstream science site? (Last I checked JPL was considered pretty "mainstream").
Remember this is the "Against the mainstream" BB! [-X
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 10:05 PM
SeanF's Avatar
SeanF SeanF is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Sioux Falls, SD
Posts: 5,034
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Thousand Pardons
Quote:
Originally Posted by N C More
I can't help but notice that JPL does not seem to be showing a geocentric (or any other planet as the center for that matter) in the solar system model on their site.

Quote:
JPL's solar system dynamics WWW site provides information related to all known bodies in orbit around the sun. This site is maintained by the Solar System Dynamics Group of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
(emphasis mine)
I know I saw somewhere there where the Sun rose this morning, but I'll be d*nged if I can find it again.
Well, it's not JPL, but this NASA page says, "As the sun rises . . . and sets . . ."
__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2008 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 10:13 PM
Ut Ut is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney, NS
Posts: 2,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
N C More wrote (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Was this from a mainstream science site? (Last I checked JPL was considered pretty "mainstream").
Remember this is the "Against the mainstream" BB! [-X
Which obviously means we should in no way, shape, or form consider what the majority think on the issue.
__________________
"I'm making wheatloaf. It's like meatloaf, only with wheat"
"Isn't that just...bread?"
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2005, 10:23 PM
N C More's Avatar
N C More N C More is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Plymouth, MA
Posts: 2,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
N C More wrote (emphasis mine):

Quote:
Was this from a mainstream science site? (Last I checked JPL was considered pretty "mainstream").
Remember this is the "Against the mainstream" BB! [-X
Yes, it certainly is! However, the argument has been that the "any frame of reference is equally valid" notion of general relativity is the mainstream manner of viewing the solar system and that a heliocentric solar system model is somehow the outdated crack pot notion of viewing the solar system. The viewpoint at JPL seemed to contradict this thinking. Now do you see why I worded it that way?
__________________
An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get all sorts of weird bugs!