Well, I would deny that. Still, I do not believe in geocentricism anymore than I do phrenology.
No, the argument is the same as the argument used by Einstein or Born, that we have arrived at the point where the view of Ptolemy is equivalent to the view of Copernicus. That is a consequence of 20th century physics--not just 19th century mathematics. That is, it is not just a coordinate transformation, but also one where the laws of physics are unchanged, according to general relativity.

GrapesOfWrath:
"Still, I do not believe in geocentricism anymore than I do phrenology."

Chip:
That's nice. I'm glad to hear it, but instead of disagreeing with my reasons, perhaps you could state why you do not believe in geocentricism. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

GrapesOfWrath:
"No, the argument is the same as the argument used by Einstein or Born..."

Chip:
You're too kind. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Mach, Einstein, Hoyle and even Bertrand Russell also did not "believe" in Geocentricity. But they were sagacious enough to admit that it is at least a first among equals!
http://www.geocentricity.com/papers.htm

And Chip should evince a little less confidence that the Universe is expanding!

http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Caryn on 2002-10-05 17:39 ]</font>

Funny, other than Mach, none of the other names are mentioned on that first link. I think it has also been stated ad nauseum that geocentrism is no more "correct" a reference point than heliocentrism or joviacentrism, according to relativity.


-Adam

In addition to the diurnal motions, the stars exhibit an annual motion, parallax, that would require either a Ptolemaic epicycle correlated with the Sun's orbit, and which can then be replaced with a "link" between the Sun and the star. This link is always the same direction and length (we're ignoring proper motions here) and amounts to what I described as a "lockstep" motion between the two. The distance and direction from the Sun to the star does not change, but the direction from the Earth to the star does, hence parallax.

My point has been that everything else in the Universe is correlated with the position of the Sun relative to the Earth, and that it is just purely incidental that, oh yeah, the Sun orbits the Earth.

Also notice that we haven't even mentioned aberration!

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

For those of you keeping score at home, this is a "paper" that not even the Creation Research Society Quarterly would print! Need we say more?
[Edited to remove orphaned HTML code.]
_________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Celestial Mechanic on 2002-10-06 01:09 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Celestial Mechanic on 2002-10-06 01:10 ]</font>

I think that some of this argument is semantics, and this may have been pointed out before but let me try again.

We actually have two theories here. Geocentric-A and Geocentric-B.

Geocentric-A is this: We can work the math out and sure, if we fix the Earth in one spot, everything works out; however, we could also fix the moon or the sun, or somewhere else, and still work the math out. The frames of reference are all valid, and we use whichever seems to work best at the time.

Geocentric-B is this (I think): The Earth is fixed and this is the only valid frame of reference to use (for various reasons - the ether, the Bible says so, whatever).

The problem comes in when the "geocentrists" try first to claim that Geocentric-A is just as valid as Solar-centric or Lunar-centric (true), then switch to talking about Geocentric-B (and thus try to pull a truth along to something else that isn't). They don't use 'A' or 'B', but try to confuse by passing both theories off as the same thing.

Obviously, as has been stated here before, they are basically saying "All frames of reference are valid and only one frame of reference is valid".

Let's call a spade a spade, and a crank a crank.

So there you are: The gauntlet has been thrown
down. Where does
Earth end and the Firmament begin?



To paraphrase Mel Gibson in "Braveheart": "You've dropped your gauntlet."

There is no Firmopause. Your firmamental effect is felt throughout the
entire volume of the Earth. The fictitious forces in non-geocentric models
(e.g., centrifugal, Coriolis, and Eulerian) are actual forces in the
geocentric model. The effects you're looking for but fail to see are the
standard textbook ones already acknowledged by Einstein in his famous letter
to Ernst Mach, because we have the case of complete dragging of inertial
frames.

There ARE a class of theorists whose model requires some kind of Firmopause,
but they're not geocentrists -- they're aether theorists who require a
gradient in the aether to explain the Michelson-Morley effect. Their
firmopause is presumably not a discrete boundary but a gradual transition
zone (which, let it be noted, has never been experimentally detected).

Geocentrists have noted the supreme hypocrisy of astronomers who blithely
point out many quasars with Hubble recessional velocities several multiples
of c in magnitude (superluminal quasars) who reject geocentricity because it
involves superluminal speeds. If such critics were consistent, they'd toss
out the Hubble law first (since it involves rectilinear superluminals)
before attacking geocentricity (which involves rotational superluminals).
Frankly, both sets of superluminal phenomenal attribute the effect to the
respective property of space in each model. The superluminal quasars are
explained by saying that space stretches, while superluminal rotation in
geocentricity is explained by positing rotation of that space. Rotating
spaces (or rotating spacetimes, which are touched upon quite often in the
astrophysical literature) are not, prima facie, more untenable than space
that stretches. The principle is the same in both models: an attribute of
space accounts for the effect.

The critic has created a classic straw man, stuffing words into the mouths
of geocentrists and evidencing reckless carelessness in making his hasty
(and error-ridden) inferences. Geocentrists tie the firmament to key
properties of space, in particular the +376 ohm reactive impedance of empty
space. This property is continuous and uniform throughout the universe. We
teach the absence of a firmopause. (I'm not observing the trademarking of
the name, since trademarking something that doesn't exist is unseemly.)

About the most charitable thing that could be said for this particular
critic is that he's apparently depicted Aristotle's model of geocentricity
with reasonable accuracy, and criticized it with some justice. Sadly,
Aristotle is not in a position to pick up your gauntlet, and I'm aware of no
modern geocentrists who adopt his distinction between celestial and
terrestrial physics. Astute geocentrists of today usually adopt the causal
stochastic model of quantum mechanics (a la Bohm and Vigier) as a reasonable
foundation for a vigorously-worked out firmamental mechanics. Such models,
as has been long-noted, are consistent with modern physical theory and
experiment (and even consistent with relativity, if such were desired, since
the resulting firmament functions as a relativistic Dirac ether).

You only have one gauntlet left, unless you plan to borrow one from a
better-informed critic of geocentricity.

Not your argument! Mine. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
That is setting up a straw man--geocentrists would of course deny that a Ptolemaic epicycle is required. As would I.

Wait, there is an unresolved "or" in that sentence. Is there something left off, or is that a typo?
Well, from my point of view, the geocentrists can wail all they want. The problem comes in, I would say, when otherwise clear-thinking scientists try to criticize the geocentric position by using nineteenth century physics. That just fuels the fire.

In other words, the heat comes on when folks try to fight Geocentric-B (using your terms) by criticizing Geocentric-A--which you admit is true! No aberration or centrifugal bulge or CMB is going to change that. At least not yet.

The universe is not Newtonian. Get over it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I was touching on this too with a previous reference to the expansion of the universe. (Perhaps you mean that the universe as a whole is not exclusively Newtonian, since aspects of Newtonian physics are ingrained into "Einsteinian" physics.) I also stated along with others that relativity cannot be used to support geocentricism. I still think non-Newtonian aspects of relativity as well as Newtonian changes of reference frames contradict geocentricism.

Your re-definition of "honestmonkey's" excellent "A & B" description seems clear to me. Without becoming "SourGrapesofWrath" I hope you can have a go at defining your reasons why geocentricism A or B is not real. (Or link to where you already did this.) [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-06 18:32 ]</font>

From a certain point of view, there are absolutely no aspects of Newtonian mechanics engrained in General Relativity.

Newtonian mechanics can be used as an approximation to GR, if certain conditions are satisfied. However, in attacking geocentrism, some people try to use Newtonian mechanics--clearly not allowed!

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. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)

GrapesOfWrath:
From a certain point of view, there are absolutely no aspects of Newtonian mechanics engrained in General Relativity.

Chip:
I wrote "Einsteinian physics" which includes the earlier Special Relativity of 1905. SR is applicable to the physics involved with the expansion of the universe. SR corrects the Newtonian assumption that m was constant, whereas the mass actually increases with velocity. SR follows from Newton's 2nd law. I don't get the "certain point of view" clause. Newtonian physics also works within the zone of middle dimensions.

Since the expanding universe has no perceived center, geocentric or otherwise, and distant objects are not rising, moving across the night sky, and setting at supraluminal speeds, but would appear to if someone thinks they are really that far away and moving that fast, it follows that the geocentric view is based solely on what is perceived with human eyes, and based on non-scientific doctrine, rather than taking in what is invisible to human eyes. (Odd, since religious folks have no problem accepting or having faith in the existence of the unseen.)

Likewise, the supraluminal motion of quasar jets are an illusion perhaps caused by this expansion (the receding quasar jets as seen from earth appear correspondingly slower than expected,)

GrapesofWrath:
Newtonian mechanics can be used as an approximation to GR, if certain conditions are satisfied. However, in attacking geocentrism, some people try to use Newtonian mechanics--clearly not allowed!

Chip:
The Einstein and Infeld quote concerning the sun and the earth is concerned with the relativity of reference frames in motion. As when one is on a "still" train in the station when an adjacent train moves out. One could say your train is moving and the other train is not, or visa versa. One of my points earlier is that even though you may not be able to use this to contradict geocentricism, you cannot use it to support geocentricism either.

Once you get a second observation (from the railway platform) involved, geocentricism goes out the window. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-06 20:21 ]</font>

When I wrote "The universe is not Newtonian" I wasn't talking about special relativity either. Special relativity is also an approximation to general relativity. In the case of geocentrism, it too doesn't apply.
No...notice their comment about Ptolemy and Copernicus.

If this is true, that "the firmamental effect is felt throughout the entire volume of the Earth", then why doesn't the firmament spin the Earth about like everything else?

The gauntlet remains thrown.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

In response to Dunash's challenge to produce geocentrists that believe in "special physics" of the Firmament, I offer you Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw. I quote three paragraphs from http://www.geocentricity.com:
In the above quote it is quite clear that he believes that the Firmament is quite dense (all the better to spin the rest of the Universe about at great speed!). He also believes that wave mechanics are what allows objects to move within this incredibly dense Firmament (so that the Sun, Moon, and other heavenly bodies can have their individual motions in addition to their common diurnal motion). And the best part of all, "In order to hide its finite properties from the material in the universe, the firmament, as this created medium is called, could not be allowed to reveal its true age, density, nor allow the determination of absolute positions within it. In this way, time and position would be kept indeterminate, where the word indeterminate is a mathematical synonym for infinite." As the Church Lady would say, "How CONVE-E-E-ENIENT!"

Unfortunately, the indeterminancy that Dr. Bouw writes about (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) is also a property of our domain, in fact it was discovered before Sputnik was launched into the Firmament.

Lastly, I have to take issue with the notion that God is somehow "hiding" the properties of the Universe from us. The only thing God is hiding from us is the hour of the Last Judgment--the Universe is an open book, one that we need to approach with a proper methodology of observation and experimentation, not speculations based on long-discredited philosophies and obscure theological disputes. As Albert Einstein said, "The Lord God is subtle, but not malicious".

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

In response to Dunash's challenge to produce geocentrists that believe in "special physics" of the Firmament, I offer you Lambert Dolphin. I quote two paragraphs from http://www.ldolphin.org:
Again, we have an implicit belief in different properties that makes the Firmament "more solid, more substantial, more permanent than the present, observable, material world." Sounds like different physics to me.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

The Tychonic Kludge -- Take Two

I want to thank Chip for pointing out the motion of the Earth and Moon about their barycenter--I'd forgotten all about it! Not only are the planets orbiting about the Sun rather than the Earth, the Sun is not orbiting around the Earth either, rather it is orbiting about the Earth-Moon barycenter. The only things that orbit the "center of the universe" directly are the Moon and our artificial satellites. The system gets less "geocentric" the more we look at it.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

Geocentrism and the Moon's Rotation

Chip offered the libration of the Moon as a paradox that refutes geocentrism. Alas, that is not true, but I will outline an experiment that could be performed on the Moon to refute geocentrism once and for all.

But first, I want to clear up confusion about libration. The Moon has the same symmetry as a brick, that is, it has three mutually perpendicular axes of unequal lengths. The Moon rotates about the short axis once a sidereal month with the long axis pointed toward the Earth. The long axis points directly at Earth when the Moon is at perigee and apogee with slight differences due to some of the causes I will mention below. The libration is due to four causes, from largest to smallest:

1. The motion in its orbit is not as uniform as the rotation. At perigee the Moon is moving faster in longitude than the Moon is rotating, thus revealing the trailing or western side. Towards apogee it slows until the long axis is pointing to Earth and then with the Moon moving slower in longitude than it is rotating the forward or eastern side is revealed. This is called the optical libration good for about 7 degrees.
2. The Moon has a parallax of about one degree, so observers at different locations on Earth will see the Moon from slightly different angles. Also, in the course of the Moon being above your horizon the rotation of the Earth will change this angle for you. This is called the topocentric libration and is about one degree. Your mileage may vary!
3. The Moon's rotation, while more uniform than the orbital motion, is still not as uniform as the Earth's rotation. The Earth pulls the long axis back towards alignment. This effect is called the physical libration and is at most 0.07 degrees.
4. Finally, there is the Eulerian free precession and nutation, representing the difference between the axis of figure (what I called the "short axis" above) and the instantaneous axis of rotation. This effect is too small to be observed from Earth-based observations alone, but I am sure that we have determined it through the laser ranging experiments.

So, how do I propose to test geocentricity through the Moon's rotation? Simple, perform a Sagnac-type experiment on the Moon (and let's perform Michelson-Morley as well, while we're at it). If the Moon is really being whirled around once a day minus its individual motion through the Firmament, a Sagnac apparatus will measure the rotational rate as 24hr 50min, the "synodic" rate (relative to the Firmament's rotation). If the acentric model is correct the apparatus will measure 27.3 days, the "sidereal rate".

_________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Celestial Mechanic on 2002-10-07 00:43 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath,

I was hoping to learn something from what you're saying as you are obviously a very smart person, but you seem to only pinpoint those portions of my posts that can be disagreed with and completely overlook any portions that offer something to build on. (I know you've already formulated a comeback to that, but there really are points that have never been addressed with regard to the geocentric view. A view I disagree with.)

Even though I too can find loopholes in your responses, its becoming pointless to mention them because it just dovetails into "you said" - "I said" - "you said" - "I said."

There are better things to do, so have a nice day. Tah tah.

Chip

Hey! Thanks for posting this! Its very informative. I was having second thoughts about the moon examples I used, and if wrong, was hoping someone would offer better ideas, which you have. I too was thinking of hypothetical observation experiments (from Mars for example) but your moon experiment is better, and very interesting. Thanks for the thoughts. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

What about the "Einstein said"? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I couldn't find online information about the "lunar geoid" (or selenoid). Do you have the actual measurements available?
No, that won't work. The geocentric model does not predict a result of 24hr 50min--it predicts the same result as modern physics. That's why arguments against geocentricism are non-viable.

Not necessarily.

Relativity states that any reference frame is just as good as any other.

Geocentricity (capital G) states that earth-centered is actual fact.

Showing that the universe is not Geocentric (capital G) does not negate Relativity.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

That's quite thoughtful. I'll have to think about it for a while, and look into the principles behind the Sagnac experiment further. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

1. Suppose there were Martians, and they had "Arescentrists." Let's suppose further that the Arecentrists used all the same arguments for their world as the "Geocentrists" do for Earth. They are both in radio communication with each other.
Are there any loopholes revealed to unbiased third parties listening in on their arguments?

2. How does the Milky Way galaxy maintain its beautiful spiral shape (which BTW we can't see from earth very well,) when it is whirling around once a day on an axis 3/4 of the way from it's center? (The point where earth is located.)

3. Why should I be concerned with such silliness? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] (It's Monday - gotta get to work now...)

Dunash wrote:
Superluminal quasars are not "quasars with Hubble recessional velocities several multiples of c in magnitude". More properly the phenomenon should be referred to as (apparent) superluminal jets. These are jets that are directed just slightly off to the side and give the illusion of superluminal velocity in the transverse direction. They are not explained by "saying that space stretches". If Dunash and other geocentrists would actually read the scientific literature that they criticize they would know this. It is Dunash that has evidenced "reckless carelessness in making his hasty (and error-ridden) inferences". Perhaps he should remove the beam from his eye before criticizing the mote in mine. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

But how are you going to show that, without negating general relativity? That is the question--worthy of a Nobel.

"Celestial Mechanic" assumes that the moon's diurnal motion is through the Firmament instead of with the Firmament.

The Firmament's diurnal period is the same as the siderial rate. The Sagnac effect only detects rotation within the firmament (once a month for the moon), but the orbital motion of the moon is not a rotation and thus not detectable by a single Sagnac apparatus on
the moon.

Are you now saying that the Firmament rotates at different rates for the bodies within it? That the Firmament pushes each satellite of Earth just so? Then I must also press Firefox's question, namely, why are there satellites in orbit about other planets?
Your claim that the Sagnac effect only detects rotation within the Firmament sounds suspiciously like different physics for the firmament, so I must add you to the list of geocentrists that believe in "special" physics for the Firmament.

The Moon rotates with one face facing the Earth. If a Sagnac apparatus is placed on the Moon at the end of the long axis that is pointed towards Earth, the revolution about the Earth combined with this synchronous rotation will cause that apparatus to rotate. It will rotate once, and once only, for each revolution it makes around the Earth. If you believe in geocentrism, this means 24 hours 50 minutes (approximately), the time between successive transits of a local meridian, which is by definition a fixed plane in the geocentric system.

If the acentric theory is correct, the moon revolves once every 27.3 days (approximately) relative to the "fixed stars" which provide the appropriate reference system.

A Sagnac apparatus on the Moon must measure a period of 24 hours 50 minutes if geocentrism is to be valid. You cannot appeal to "special physics" if, like Dunash, you deny that the Firmament has any.

__________________
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.

I now officially condemn CM's skits as smartaleck, ignorant, sophomoric, inflammatory and and a poor reflection on the level of discussion in BAUT. -- Bob Angstrom

You're clouding the issue. Do you agree or disagree with my statement. If you disagree, why?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Ad hominems cloud the issue.
Of course I disagree. I didn't really think you were worthy of a Nobel prize, yet.

I disagree because, based upon my current understanding of mainstream physics, I cannot see how one could physically disprove geocentrism. All the tests I've seen so far have been Newtonian--that is, they use Newtonian mechanics to test geocentrism. It's been almost a hundred years since we've had a better understanding of the universe than that.

In General Relativity, any reference frame, including a rotating one, is valid. That is not just a coordinate transformation--it means that if you were to be suddenly handed a universe with the stars spinning around a stationary Earth, the laws of physics are such that that sort of universe would not only be allowed, but it would continue to move without disruption.

The only question is, how do you determine whether the universe is rotating, since all reference frames are equivalent. But that doesn't affect geocentrism.