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

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.

This doesn't sound like news to me.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

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."

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?"

Nice Quote (A Thousand Pardons):

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:

What is your view of those who say the CMB is a preferred reference frame?

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?"

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.

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?"

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.

Except to indicate that variation does occur.

Demigrog asks:

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!

And there we get to the center of the problem: What is your definition of "geocentric"?

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.

(emphasis mine)

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

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!

N C More wrote (emphasis mine):

Remember this is the "Against the mainstream" BB! [-X

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 ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

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?"

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!

A little sarcasm replied to with the same.

I am not implying that the "mainstream" is crackpot.

Then what exactly are you here to tell us?

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

Yeah, I thought it was the JPL site, but maybe not--and I see SeanF found something like it at a NASA site, which should be good enough.

When JPL's solar system dynamic shows the Earth (or any other planet) as the static center and describes, "all known bodies in orbit around the Earth or Mars or Venus etc." then somebody please notify me. I'd really like to see it.

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

Many Geocentrics refute GR and believe in absolute space and time -- some because they realize that GR does away with the possibility of any preferred frame, some because they like to cling on to the idea that the Michelson Morley experiment demonstrated that the earth does not move relative to the aether. Often these arguments against Geocentrism that you talk about are given out of ignorance about GR, but quite frequently they are given because a Geocentric can't consistently refute them and refute GR in favour of a Newtonian universe.

__________________
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.

The arguments were against geocentrism, not Geocentrism, that he was talking about. But I wonder--are you suggesting that the arguments are OK, just because the opponent can't refute them? Or are you saying that that is the reason that people use such arguments, and it's an easy way out?

Not technically correct. GR considers the whole discussion as to what reference frame to use absurd. It doesn't say that you can't distinguish between the systems. Indeed, you can distinguish between the systems. For example, a geocentric solar system model looks very different from a heliocentric model.

Geocentrism as a prefered frame fails the Ockham's Razor test wrt GR. This is because GR is simpler: it states simply that there is no preferred frame. Geocentrism states that there is, but offers no supporting scientific evidence to that effect.

There is also no evidence to rule out that any other given reference frame is the one you should choose as prefered. The principle of least astonishment states that when you have a general solution (no prefered reference frame) and an inifinity of particular solutions (an unsubstantiated claim of a prefered reference frame) then it is the former you chose rather than the latter.

Scientific evaulation requires evidence. Lack of evidence for a particular model is damaging to that model.

Ok, so would somebody define "geocentrism" with a small "g"? If it is only meant to say "I pick a point and call it 'center'" (or "Bob" or "gesundheit") then there is no argument. That isn't a useful statement, however.

Of course. And this is the crux of the argument. My understanding of the term "Geocentrism" is:

- Center has a specific meaning in geometry.
- It is a unique property of a structure. There can only be one center. It is a "preferred frame."
- The universe is a structure where it is possible to have a center in accessible space-time.
- The earth is the center of the universe. That is, everything else in the universe surrounds and rotates about the Earth, and only the Earth.

And that does not agree with either theory or observation.

Van Rijn says:

It [Geocentrism] disagrees with currently accepted opinion. It does not disageree with any known empirical observations that I know of. Neither scenario (geocentric or acentric w/heliocentric solar system) has been demonstrated to be the "actual" one. We use a particular model (acentric / helio solar system) and it works. A Geocentric system (if the universe were in fact Geocentric) would lead to the same results in terms of observation, launching of space craft, etc., and because of Einstein's equivalence principle, if the two could be distinguished by simple observation, this would mean GR is in trouble as a theory. Of course if a Geocentric system (a true one as defined in the quote) does exist, GR will need to be revamped or replaced. Please keep in mind that the acentrism of GR is a postulate, not a proven or demonstrated fact (though one could argue that observations supporting it do exist, as vice versa does exist).

It's a bit more than a postulate. If Geocentrism is correct, then this means that there is a violation to relativity because there would be some preference for the geocentric frame. It's not a velocity preference, because we measure that to be the CMB. If it is any other preference, it must be due to a violation of GR. So if Geocentrism is ultimately to be shown correct, it must deny GR.

In general, when someone advocates for an idea that they have no way of positing a means to test the idea, the idea isn't generally accepted as being scientific. This is the current state of Geocentrism.