In this article on ancient naviagtion & longitude, the paragraph "Finding Longitude" states: "You cannot tell longitude from the stars alone, because their daily motion is purely apparent, caused by the rotation of the Earth." Is this implying that if the stars' motion is real as the Geocentrists hold, not apparent, you could determine longitude? Is this a violation of Relativity & Mach, that says that there is no way to visually distinguish between the models?

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...avigators.html

For purposes of 19th century navigation (and earlier) there is no particular difference between the standard view and the geocentric view. Without modern instruments, there was no way to determine whether you had moved 15 degrees east/west, or lost/gained one hour on your clock.

None of this has anything to do with the geostationary view that some here cleave to with inexplicable dedication.

Silas

I agree with Silas. If one carefully observes motions which are not dependent on the Earth's rotation (or, alternatively, the rotation of the universe)--ie, the motions of the moons of Jupiter--then one can indeed use these motions as a celestial clock, and use that to determine longitude.

The problem is, without a really accurate timepiece one can't be sure whether a small change in the apparent midnight position of Sirius, for instance, is caused by a change in your longitudinal position on the Earth or by an inaccuracy in your darned 18^th-century clock. It could be either one. So, once telescopes became available, astronomers published charts showing the positions of the major moons of Jupiter and the "absolute" time at which these positions would occur. This allowed navigators to find the correct time even after 6 months at sea, and hence determine their longitude.

"Inexplicable dedication"?! Until MM is performed on the Moon or the Shuttle, we will remain dedicated to its zero-velocity result & the Bible's geostatic pronouncements. Meanwhile, can you answer the question: is the article wrong in implying that in the Geostationary model longitude can be found, but not in the Heliocentric?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-12 20:26 ]</font>

Prince: If the article had said that one can find the longitude by star observations in the geocentric model but not in the heliocentric model then the article would be dead wrong. That's what Silas said, too.

I don't read that statement into the article, though: "You cannot tell longitude from the stars alone, because their daily motion is purely apparent, caused by the rotation of the Earth." That says nothing about geocentrism, nor does it make any assertion about conditions that would hold under the geocentrist premise. It simply doesn't mention it, Prince.

If you were to think about it, you would see clearly that the motion of stars turning around the Earth is the same as the apparent motion of the stars as the Earth turns. The geocentric, heliocentric, and acentric (the understanding that the universe has no preferred center) cannot be distinguished solely on the evidence of the apparent motion of stars from Earth.

Incidentally, I don't believe you would give up geocentrism no matter what experiments and what scientific evidence shows. As Gerardus Bouw wrote on his website, in the view of a believer science can never correct the Bible--full stop. I tend to think that you would find another reason to continue believing that universe revolves around you.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-12 20:39 ]</font>

Strictly, the article's wording implies that if the the stars motions were real and the Earth was stationary in an absolute sense, then you could find longitude from the stars alone. So if that's not so, it's poorly worded. Meanwhile, as Martin Selbrede said in another posting: "Geocentricity will keep its friends close & its enemies closer"; so as along as you believe that Relativity is still intact, then you are obliged to agree with Sir Fred that "the Geocentric Paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's"! You of course would be prepared to give up on Heliocentrism/Acentrism if the fringes showed up on the Moon!






<


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-12 21:37 ]</font>

And, as our good host, the Bad Astronomer, has pointed out at least twenty times, the same is true for Arecentrism, Jovacentrism, or centrism based on any other body in the whole of the cosmos. You are right...but you are so *trivially* right that your view is degraded into meaninglessness.

When no point in the cosmos is "better" than any other point, you are exposed as a fool for preferring one above all others.

Silas

Good. At least you therefore agree that those who say geocentricity (spelt here with a g as opposed to a G) is "wrong" are also "fools".




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-12 23:28 ]</font>

Prince: "so as along as you believe that Relativity is still intact, then you are obliged to agree with Sir Fred that 'the Geocentric Paradigm is at least as good as anyone else's'!"

I won't get into a slanging match, but no, I am not obliged to agree that geocentrism is as good as anything else. There are many more observations of the universe possible besides the apparent diurnal movements of the stars. For example, I've heard the CBR described loosely as the "rest frame for the universe"--and the CBR is not absolutely isotropic with respect to Earth. For example, I find geocentric explanations of measured changes in Earth's rotation due to earthquakes unconvincing. And so forth.

Perhaps you would agree with Sir Fred that religion is a refuge for minds unable to face the reality of mankind's insignificance? Fred Hoyle had some pretty disparaging stuff to say about the Hebrew presentation of cosmology, I believe. I'll see if I can find his little book on cosmology and quote some of it to you.

Prince: "You of course would be prepared to give up on Heliocentrism/Acentrism if the fringes showed up on the Moon!"

Quite a lot would depend on the eventual interpretation of the experiment--on the explanation given by physicists for the finding. I think that a non-null result for a test of the isotropy of light propagation would force a re-evaluation of a lot of theory but it would not necessarily prove geocentrism in one stroke. Perhaps most importantly, it would do nothing to eliminate objections to geocentrism not based on the isotropy of the propagation of light, such as the ones I mentioned above.

As far as my evaluation of the behavior of believers (as opposed to scientists, in the best meaning of the word) goes, I base it on personal observation. I have never yet met a True Believer who would change his mind on his Belief. Bouw describes the psychological development of Belief on his autobiographical web page:

"I joined the Creation Research Society and soon ran into some differences with them because many, though not all of the members of that learned society are scientists first and biblicists second. I had learned my second lesson, though. Science can never correct the Bible. Never twist the wording of scripture to fit a pet theory. I still cannot go along with the two-model approach: that creationism and evolutionism should be taught side-by-side as theories. Again I asked the Lord: 'What must I forget next?'"

A Believer must be a Biblicist first and foremost; science is secondary. Science can never correct the Bible. The man who knows something of science is required to "forget" that which contradicts the Bible: "What must I forget next?" That's my impression of Believers exactly, and that's why I (respectfully) doubt that you would indeed change your mind.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2003-01-13 05:08 ]</font>

So, you cannot be a geocentrist. You must be an acentrist, Prince. You have no evidence otherwise.

Since we are unable to physically perceive whatsoever any of the five different vertiginous motions that the Earth is purported to be simultaneously experiencing according to your cosmology, and when we read in the Bible that the Earth really is stationary, together with the fact that science accepts geocentricity (and even Geocentricity is not without some evidence!), this appeals to those of us born with a genetically-predispositioned Theistic (the recently discovered so- called "God Center" in the brain!) mindset. So what's your beef?




<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-13 12:39 ]</font>

I don't know about you, but I don't require necessarily a "physcial" perception in order for me to believe something. I don't physically "perceive" magnetic fields, but I know they exist. Likewise I don't physically "perceive" gluons, but I know they exist.

Sometimes you go on evidence other than what you "feel". In fact the evidence for the different motions of Earth is extant by means of various methods.

Here, then, lies the beef. As long as you put yourself in a non-Newtonian frame, you can allow for a universe that whips around the Earth. All effects are accounted for. However, as soon as you leave that frame, all the rules change. Fictious forces give way to other intertial forces and you perceive our planet to go away from us. The reason we don't use geocentricity is because it is easier to bring assumptions of Newton and Kepler into the mix when you have a neutral perspective.

Consider: the only way to "accept" geocentrism as does Hoyle is to first consider heliocentrism and then acentrism. This must be done because otherwise precise motions of the planets are not accounted for. We know that in order to understand the solar system, we need to consider the Keplerian dance of the planets and the sun. If that is done then the realization is that the sun barely moves while the planets go around it. This is true to a precision greater than 99%. So, fine, you can transform yourself back into the geocentric frame, but only after you've analyzed nature in a frame that is at least quasi-Newtonian. There really is no other way to get orbital parameters for extraterrestrial bodies right. If you do use geocentrism, you end up applying non-inertial correction forces that arrive because the Earth is not an intertial reference frame. In effect, you recognize the fact that the Earth is not moving constantly, but with an acceleration. This hardly seems like the "theistic" geocentrism that is required by you, Prince.

So therein lies the beef. You want me to admit that geocentrism is just as "good", but I don't think you know what that geocentrism that Hoyle is talking about really looks like. It's actually heliocentrism (or acentrism, if you will) that has been changed into Earth's reference frame. You cannot start with assuming Earth stationary and arrive at the same result.

I'm not following this explanation. What do you mean by "leave that frame"? Do you mean, stop using it?

I think what he means is that, in a geostationary cosmos, the view from, say, a distant galaxy would be REALLY WEIRD! What we perceive to be a nice, orderly spiral galaxy would appear, to the inhabitants of that far galaxy, as a long, queer smear of stars stretching for a great distance in one direction, while absurdly foreshortened in another.

What appears "orderly" to us would compel absurdities upon everyone else.

Silas

If the evidence for the Earth's motions is "extant by means of various methods", as JSP holds, what "on Earth" would make Einstein's disciple Lincoln Barnett say: "We cannot feel or show that the Earth is in motion; nor has any experiment ever proved that the Earth is in motion"!? What are these "various methods", pray tell?






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-13 12:47 ]</font>

Keep the ad hominems out of this thread, folks. The word "fool" is in that class.

Longitude of a planet is a local coordinate to that body alone. The longitude of the moon, for example, is relative to the moon's orientation, not the Earth's.

When you figure out the longitude on the moon, you don't ask yourself "which body is in the center of the universe?" but "where am I on the map of the moon?".

Likewise with the Earth.

I apologize. I'm frustrated by the repetition of an *old* subject with nothing new added, but that doesn't excuse my breaking of the rules.

Silas

The point here is that longitude must be arbitrary. That is, there is no reference point for longitude like there is for latitude (the poles/equator). So for longitude, you need to pick someplace to start from. For the Earth, Greenwich England is that spot.

The next problem is measuring your longitude. If you know the exact time, you can use the Sun or stars. That's why making an accurate portable timepiece was so important centuries ago. Just measuring the position of a star doesn't help unless you know the time.

From what I can see of the original post, measuring longitude is not dependent on what frame you choose, geocentric or otherwise. You just pick one and go, but you still need to know what time it is.

And as has been pointed out, saying geocentrism is the one true frame is completely incorrect. It has its uses, just like many other frames, but there is no one true frame.

Lincoln is talking about "feel", specifically what one tells from the fact that one is in a non-inertial reference frame. You are confusing the issue, Prince, by thinking that he is saying we cannot "know" how the orbit of Earth looks around the sun. In fact there are many effects that are observed that would have to become "new physics" except that they are explained by GR reducing to the Keplerian/Newtonian conditions in our Solar System.

To wit, how do you explain: parallax, Bradley's stellar abberations, Foucault's pendulum, the corriolis effect, the change in net force at the Equator as opposed to the poles, the oblate nature of Earth, the change in solar luminosity due to the eccentricity of Earth's orbit from January to July, Keplerian dynamics of the various planets (which require the sun to be mostly stationary since it is so much more massive), perhelion precession, retrograde motion, solar energy relations for planets that are from Mars and beyond (or do you take a modified geocentric point of view allowing Venus and Mercury to orbit the sun).

In effect, what kind of geocentrist are you? Do you just like starting fights or do you actually have an explanation for all these things?

By definition of Relativity, NONE of these phenomena can be used as disproof of geocentricity; otherwise Relativity itself would also be disproved (maybe you are an Anti-Relativist? If so, what is YOUR explanation for MM & MG?). Mach, Lense & Thirring & Barbour & Bertotti showed that ALL these phenomena are equally well be explained by a universe rotating round the Earth. Even an arch-atheist like Bertrand Russell acknowledged this. You really should subscribe to Bouw's quarterly "Biblical Astronomer" journal.
http://www.geocentricity.com/papers.htm






<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Prince on 2003-01-13 20:06 ]</font>

Ah, Prince, you are missing the fundamental point. All of these phenomena are described NOT by a universe rotating around Earth but by Earth rotating around the sun otherwise you have a system which is non-inertial. It's fine to have a non-inertial system, but it is not the most mathematically elegant and it is meaningless once you get perspective on the situation.

Let's make an analogy. Say you are flying in an airplane that is circling the globe at an increasing velocity. Why, there's all sorts of effects that you explain by means of fictious forces and non-Newtonian dynamics. This is fine because you are on an accelerating reference frame. Things get much simpler if you look at said plane from another reference frame.

The trick in relativity is not to simply say "all is lost since I can solve all problems in all frames," but rather to say, "I need to find the most appropriate reference frame for the problem.

Every last one of the phenomena I mentioned are much more easily explained by the Earth whipping around the sun. End of story.

Now you need to answer my question: DO you deny that the Earth going around the sun is a valid reference frame?
Do you?

Let's be clear: If you don't believe it is possible for the Earth to go around the Sun, you have contradicted yourself.

However, for someone to say that the Earth is not the center of the universe is not a contradiction because there IS no fiducial center. Moreover, for someone to say the Earth goes around the Sun is fine. Moreover, that person should also admit that to a certain approximation on the Earth it appears that the Sun goes around the Earth. However, the dynamics of such a situation are ridiculously complicated and needlessly so.