I thought geocentrism was moribund.

It seems to be undergoing a resurgence!
www.galileowaswrong.com

uh... this is a joke right??

right?????

GODS Man!! Say it's a JOKE!!!

Depends on what you mean by joke. I would bet these guys are serious that they believe it.

Tohu, given that this is the ATM section, were you just bringing that website to our attention because you thought it was humorous, or was there anything there you wanted to defend?

By the way, welcome to BAUT.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

That geocentrists exist is not too surprising as some Biblical literalists hold that view. Robert Sungenis is apparantly a Catholic Apologist who believes in geocentrism because of his (and early Church leaders') interpretation of scripture. A few years ago the board also had a persistant geocentrist who used sock-puppets to promote his views and get around bannings.

If you look back in the BAUT archives there are many geocentrist threads. Like creationists, 'true believers' in geocentrism are unlikely to change their views regardless of the evidence presented to them.

__________________
Now while I might be amused by Cthulhians, I don't necessarily distrust them to carry out the functions of government. -- JayUtah

What's it like being a skeptic in the Middle East? Check out my blog.

Galileo was wrong t-shirts, cups, hats, click here seems to sum it all up.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Hey Big Don,

Time to resurrect the picture you put on the 'Conspiracy' forum:-

"The internet - it doesn't make you stupid, it just makes your stupidity more accessible to others."

What gets me is are people really so stupid that they will shell out good cash for this crock - and if they are, how on Earth did they ever get (and keep for more than a few hours, at least) any money in the first place?

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of wood in your hand is often useful." - Ian Faith

This is my periodic post to point out that not all creationists are geocentrists

Linky

We now return you to your current programmes

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Let's not be hasty now! Bad Astronomy has a link where you can buy t-shirts, cups, hats and more. (Bad Astronomy has boxer shorts. Top that, galileowaswrong.com! )

The Internet may make one's stupidity more accessible, but only with a continuing infusion of cash.

__________________
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.

But Phil's stuff is only available to those of you in the US

__________________
Moderations in purple

Fame, glory, adventure, a cyber warrior craves not these things.

To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Here's a review:


Galileo Was Wrong, Vol. I Finally Released!

It is not crazy if you take the time to review the facts.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

What facts? Geocentrism? Trust me--it's still crazy.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Excuse me? I like this comment taken from the review page.

What's to say after that?

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Hi Gillian, you snuck one in on me as I was replying to Trth Skr.

Who I have a ten spot that sez he's a sockpuppet of some banned poster

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

I find Wikipedia's article interesting on one of the authors...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

__________________
Hanlon's Razor - "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
Asimov's addition - "Or ignorance."

"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
-- Charles Babbage

Here's what I said (the next comment):

Mark Wyatt said... Read the book.

Mark

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

No, geocentrism is not dead. It just smells funny.

__________________
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.

Mark,

Here's what I say: No

Don

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

This is the ATM section. If you have some "facts" that you want to defend, state them, and we can go from there.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

It seems that Relativity allows relativistic geocentrism, but not the absolutist Geocentrism espoused by galileowaswrong.com

Theoretically, what kind of observation would disprove Relativity, and what would we expect to see in the absolutist Geocentrist universe they revere?

Back in post #3 of this thread, Van Rijn welcomed you to BAUT, and asked if you were going to defend the ATM ideas presented in the website to which you provided a link.

I may have missed it, but you didn't answer that question.

Permit me to re-ask it: are you, Tohu, prepared to defend the ATM ideas you have presented, in this thread?

Before you answer, you may wish to read the BAUT rules, especially the one that specifically covers this ATM section:For avoidance of doubt, this is not a warning; you are new to BAUT and so are entitled to some slack.

However, we do expect that you will make your intentions clear, in the next day or two.

Although I am not supporting it, according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism
there is a geocentric scheme which is not incompatible with current science.

But the one advocated by these Catholic scientists (are their degrees in science?) would seem to be. Pope Benedict seems to view evolution with disfavour. It would be interesting if he openly favoured a return to a Sungenis and Bennett's type Geocentric model and fell out even bigger time with the Vatican Observatory http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1811

But the "Faithful" would love him!

It seems it is Fr. Coyne who fell out, not the Vatican observatory or the Pope. You might find this interesting:

Robert Sungenis, Ph.D. and Bro. Guy Consolmagno, Ph.D. Discuss Geocentrism on the BBC

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I will start with a simple summary concerning two facts which Galileo Was Wrong spends a lot of time discussing. Regardless of the status of our theories (which are likely internally consistent), ultimately all falls back to observations. The two facts are observations (more accurately results of simple experiments):

1. We appear to be in the center of the universe. This is backed up with many observations including (but not limited to) [redshift] quantization of quasars, galaxies, b-lac, etc. It is also shored-up with observations of binary stars axial direction preferring earth and CMB multipole alignments with earth's equatorial plane.

Scientists (such as Hawking) state that there are two possibilites for this, both assumptions:

a. We are in the center
b. Everywhere appears to be in the center.

Only b) is considered. Hawking claims this is due to "modesty".

2. No experiment has ever conclusively proven the earth rotates on its axis or translates.

Relativity has been developed to address this by claiming that matter shrinks and clocks change rate in the direction of movement just enough to mask such measurements. Galileo Was Wrong demonstrates the historical development of this as a result of observations which conflicted with the prevailing assumption of Copernicism (in a general sense).

An viable interpretation to 1) and 2) is that the earth is in the center and not moving.

Science will not consider this option, though it is logical.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Tohu,

The "model of geocentrism consistent with modern science" is simply General Relativity. Heck, all it is a rotating coordinate system, and one could do that in Newton -- but the psuedo-forces are "absolutely fictitious" classically. If you feel a force, you are accelerating absolutely In GR, well, those fictitious forces can be due to a gravitational field, and one can feel forces but declare one is stationary relative to some gravitational source.

And that's all it is. You choose a rotating coordinate system centered on the earth, declare that is stationary, and, if you like, declare the centrifugal and coriolis forces are a real gravitational and gravitomagnetic field. And, if you like, you can find the stress-energy distribution necessary to produce such a field. For a Coriolis frame, that is a huge rotating cylinder with the the origin on the central axis.

There are those who take great stock in this (many Geocentrists reject modern science altogether and don't care about making it consistent with relativity). But this is nothing but the Equivalence Principle at work, and it's no big whoop. A curved metric in a given coordinate system can be due to acclerating coordinates, or it can be due to a gravitational field and you can't otherwise tell the difference. Unless you look out the window so to speak, and notice mass around you.

My point here is this nothing but a preference of coorinate system. Yes, GR can "allow geocentrism to work", but in a way that's no different from two observers in relative motion trying to decide who is "really moving". It is meaningless.

-Richard

What is your definition of "center"? Is it arbitrarily picking a point and calling it "center" or do you actually have a definition that is uniquely Geocentric? If so, how would you account for the many objects in space whose motion is little affected by our tiny world?

Would you say that Mars rotates? Jupiter? Saturn? Any object in space? If not, why not? If so, what is the difference between them and earth, beyond an arbitrary choice?

By the arbitrary selection argument, any point in space could be the center and not moving. Why pick earth?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

And, according to GR, no experiment can. But, then again, no experiment can prove the Earth is stationary.

Wrong. Actually, Special Relativity was developed to explain difficulties with Maxwell's equations. GR was developed to fix the difficulties SR introduced to Newton's Theory of Gravity. That GR can explain why we appear to be the center of the universe was a bonus and had nothing to do with it's development.


And if your claim above (concerning the development of Relavitiy) is accurate, the development in Galileo Was Wrong is wrong.

It's a viable option only becuase GR allows it. That it also allow all other frames to be considered stationary and the center is something Geocentrists either ignore or want to forget.

In certain circumstances, science considers this to be very valid. Actually, the contortions you would have to go through to match up 3, 4, 5 or more simultaineous observations from our deep space and planetary probes, or explain exactly how the spacecraft velocity can accelerate to match the spin of the universe (not to mention where that velocity goes as those that have come back to near earth for a gravity assist) makes it rather illogical. Especially, when you have a much simpler explanation, that fits all the observations.

In addition, why couldn't the astronauts, on the moon, consider the moon as the center? After all, some of the same observations that are claimed support geocentrism, on Earth, were observable on the moon (slower, tis true, but still there). Or for that matter, we've seen the Earth, Jupiter and the Sun moving around Mars' sky, in the same way Mars, Jupiter and the Sun move around in Earth's sky, so I guess we can claim Mars is stationary also. So, now we have three different places where the same observations, claimed to support a motionless earth, have been seen.

So, we have three centers that can be considered motionless, which points to GR being right in that all frames can be considered motionless and every point is the center. Which has the Earth and those other centers orbiting the Sun as a much simpler and more useful explanation.

Unless you are willing to claim that the space program and those observations are imaginary or made up.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

Please describe an experiment that would make the statement "the Earth does not rotate or translate" falsifiable.

It's an interesting thought, certainly. But here is one question I'd have. If the earth is at the center and not rotating, then that means the entire universe revolves around us every 24 hours. Wouldn't distant galaxies have to be moving at tremendous speeds? I mean, if something is say a billion light years away from us, and traveling in a circle around us every 24 hours, then you're talking about velocities that are like billions of light years per hour. But my understanding is that even particle experiments on earth tend to show that matter can't travel at past the speed of light.

__________________
As above, so below

I've never really looked at Geocentrism before, so I have what I'm sure will be a basic question.

If everything in the solar system revolves around the Earth, why do we only see Mercury and Venus in phases and not at opposition like we do the other planets?

Also, if Geocentrism is real, wouldn't the paths taken by Voyager, Cassini, and Galeleo have been horribly wrong, since they assumed that the Sun was the gravitational center of things in this area?

For that matter, if the Earth is in the middle of everything, wouldn't Earth's gravity be stronger than everything else?

I better stop here.

__________________
I'm not evil.
An evil person would do the things I think up.

Aberration of starlight and of the solar wind, stellar parallax and doppler shift of starlight all prove that the Earth is moving. Any defense of geocentrism must address this evidence with something stronger than conjecture that "maybe the rest of the universe is moving in circles instead."

__________________
"Transport of the mails, transport of the human voice, transport of flickering pictures - in this century, as in others, our highest accomplishments still have the single aim of bringing men together." St. Exupery