Who is this Martin Selbrede? He seems to know his stuff. Did North (of Y2K non-event infame) & Nieto ever respond to his rebuttal? Selbrede's right about one thing: Einstein's Relativity's "democratization" of the universe helped resurrect Geocentrism & sustains it!

http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm

This is incorrect, as I have stated to you at least twice before. One thread is still on this board, and anyone can find it using the search feature here. Here it is, in a thread you started.

A troll is someone who posts the same thing over and over without reading further comments or who ignores them. Catch my drift here?

I see that I responded a few times to that earlier thread, whereas Dunash did not at all. I am still interested in the subject, I hope he responds.

Good: so can we Relativists all agree that Hoyle is right: "The Geocentric paradigm is at least as good as any other, but not better!"? If Geocentricity (& Heliocentricity) cannot be proved/disproved by entities living within this universe, do we agree that all this foaming at the mouth by Nieto, North, Thomson, Faulkner, Hall, Bouw, Sagan, Rosen etc is pointless & forcing an open door, if theology is taken out of the equation?! Those few Anti-Relativists on the forum will still have to explain the MM zero-velocity result though!

I'm not familiar with the arguments of all of those people. Do you have a synopsis, or maybe a link?

Usually, from my experience, it is the geocentrists that put theology into the equation. That is totally unnecessary, as far as this goes.

One "argument" for geocentrism is that it is always possible to select geocentric coordinates. However, the same can be said of any other object in the Universe, so this is a poor triumph.

However, statements like "X moves around Y" can be expressed in coordinate-independent terms, in some form like "X undergoes much more acceleration relative to an inertial coordinate system than Y does". This is reasonable within Newtonian mechanics or special relativity, because one can always define an inertial coordinate system, one in which an object unaffected by other objects will be seen to move in a straight line at constant speed.

However, in general relativity, it is much more difficult to define some corresponding reference system, because of space-time curvature, but in most applications of GR, the space-time curvature is relatively weak, and space-time can be treated as special-relativistic space-time with some small extra GR terms. This means that we can carry over our familiar concepts of objects moving around other objects to GR, thus vindicating heliocentrism.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lpetrich on 2002-02-07 16:30 ]</font>

<a name="20020207.7:39"> page 20020207.7:39 aka "search silly"
On 2002-02-06 21:46, The Bad Astronomer wrote: To: 12 OC 8 PAX
This is incorrect, as I have stated to you at least twice before. One thread is still on this board, and anyone can find it using the search feature here.

A troll is someone who posts Catch my if

really i should use search more
:|({[
ok seach 4
:|({[

Vindicating? What do you mean? GR is the culprit here that allows geocentrists the leeway to assert that they might be right. Not only are geocentric coordinates allowed in GR, but no other coordinate reference frames are preferred over them.

Erm...if the Earth be the center of the universe, with everything else moving around it, what would make the wind blow? I doubt the empty vacuum of space as it whirled around us would push the clouds around right? And if we are stock still, in all this time, wouldn't have all the various elements of our atmosphere have settled into their own spot and quit moving? I suppose the heating and cooling the Earth experiances from the sun as it supposedly goes around us could maybe get kinetic energy moving enough to cause the winds to blow, but to such a degree that hurricanes could be caused? And I guess the tidal pull of the moon as it goes..nope...gravity no workee here cuz our itty bitty planet is the grand center of the universe and thus its gravity would cause everything to swirl around us and wouldn't be affected by the moon. I am shocked this strong gravitational pull that keeps us at the center of the universe has not already caused our solar system to implode upon us.

Sorry guys and gals, just a dumb monkey pointing out basic flaws of a dumb monkey question. Even dumb monkeys know that God has gotten all the physics down pat about creating his universe, and part of it means we ain't the center of it. I cannot ever reading a verse where God says that the Earth is the center of the universe. Perhaps someone can prove me wrong on that? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] I honestly have never read anything such in my Bible that could even be remotely linked to goecentrism.

I have a theory that the center of the universe is in the tip of my little finger. This is fully supported by the theory of relativity and therefore must be true.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

<a name="20020208.8:27"> page 20020208.8:27 aka we R <pre>
1:we Relativists | :.c.|({[ far out lines curve
2:Geocentric paradigm | :.L.|({[ and NOT straight as
3:Geocentricity (& Heliocentricity) | :..|({[ Geo Helio are thought
4:geocentric coordinates | :|(?{[? inplies plural (2)
5:in general relativity | :.c.|({[ yeah yeah WAY out
6:corresponding reference system | :|(?{[? hmm?
7:space-time curvature | :..|({[ those Curves again
8:its not easy for me to follow the D`bait! I do try to reintroduce
9arameter into Rectangular coordinate formuli thus y=2x will be y=t x=t/2 </pre>

<a name="20020208.8:33"> page 20020208.8:33 aka y=t
On 2002-02-07 16:18, lpetrich wrote: To: 13 CHUEN 9 PAX
One "argument" for geocent <pre>
1: [ it began as Y=2*X. After the first reINTRODUCTION of para
2: [ it now becomes y=t, x=t/2 Correct so far? [ ]can U follow
3:------------------------------------------------------------
4:next I cross the frame boundry passing out of [RECTANGULAR
5:and into the {GRAVITATIONAL frame of reference [Earth 2{Sky
6:================================================ ==========
7: { beginning with a new expression(S) y=t_2 and x=t_2/2
8: { consider reintroducing parameter due to boundy crossing
9: [y=t_2], [x=t_2/2]; [ '? ], [ '? ] whats '? No gravity?

1: [ it began as Y=2*X. After the first reINTRODUCTION of para
2: [ it now becomes y=t, x=t/2 Correct so far? [ ]can U follow
3:------------------------------------------------------------
4:next I cross the frame boundry passing out of [RECTANGULAR
5:and into the {GRAVITATIONAL frame of reference [Earth 2{Sky
6:================================================ ==========
7: { beginning with a new expression(S) y=t_2 and x=t_2/2
8: { consider reintroducing parameter due to boundy crossing
9: [y=t_2], [x=t_2/2]; [ '? ], [ '? ] whats '? No gravity?
<a name="20020208.8:44"> Line 20020208.8:44 aka x=t_2/2

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-02-08 10:15 ]</font>

In reply to "Challenged Chimp": geocentricity is not mentioned in the Bible is because it is taken as being obvious! Not just visually, but also from
THE SEQUENCE OF CREATION.The sun is not referred to
until Day 4. Spurious exegetes contend that it was created on Day 1 but only became visible on Day 4 so
that they can have the earth going round the sun from the very first day of its creation. The
problem is that the same word is used for the creation of the sun as for other material or
animals in Genesis 1. "Bara" and "Asah" are both used for creation and there is no
distinction between creation from nothing and creation from previous created material. Both
words are used of Man's creation. To say that the sun had already been created before day 4
is to twist the scriptures beyond acceptability in this one specific case to save the heliocentric
position - and Hebrew scholars agree. If this interpretation is used in this one instance, why is
it not used for all the other verses in Genesis. It would make nonsense of the whole record of
events.

So the Hebrew insists that the sun was created on Day 4. How then did the earth rotate
around a non-existent sun for three days? And when the sun was created on Day 4, did God
give the earth a jolt and send it on its circular route around the sun? Surely the most obvious
explanation is that the earth was created FIRST of all the universe - as the Bible says - and
the universe rotated around it - with all the planets created later on Day 4. How this could
take place scientifically we examine below.

As to what makes the wind blow in a geocentric universe, "Chimp" should read & reread & then again reread Selbrede's article http://www.geocentricity.com/rebuttal.htm


Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913: "If one accelerates a heavy
shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an
accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis
going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is,
the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around."

"We know that the difference between a Heliocentric & Geocentric system is one of RELATIVE motion only, and that such a difference HAS NO PHYSICAL SIGNIFICANCE!"(Sir Fred Hoyle).

There's one thing about the GR-based geocentric model that has me confused. Perhaps one of you can explain it to me.

I'll assume that the geocentrist in question accepts (by and large) the gross characteristics of the universe as we understand it... that it's very large (billions of light-years), very old, consists of matter and energy, and the matter is distributed through large volumes of empty space... that is, it's not all connected or attached to a solid shell.

How then are all the distant galaxies, which rotate around the Earth once a day, kept in orbit? They are, after all, very large, massive objects. Why should they all be swinging around this one little planet at ludicrous orbital speeds?

I would concede (without having the Physics skills required to prove it) that *if* the distant galaxies were all whirling around the Earth, they would account for all the effects we usually attribute to the Earth's rotation (coriolis effects).

What I don't understand is, what keeps them all spinning around us?

Maybe it's our magnetic personalities...

First, can you explain to me in physical terms alone what causes, in the Heliocentric system, the "little old Earth" itself, or any other planet to rotate without falter on its axis? Maimonides, the Kabbalists, and indeed all the ancients held that the heavenly orbs are actually sentient beings (angelic?), and in their desire to apprehend their Creator they are spurred into their ceaseless military precision-like rotations and revolutions, with the Earth and mankind on it acting as the stationary balance point at the focus of all the physical and spiritual universes!

In a word, inertia. In four words, conservation of angular momentum.

Your turn!

You answered your own questions. Or close enough.

<a name="20020209.7:45"> page 20020209.7:45 aka "NO" go
1: My "delusion" consists of the question
2: of traveling from the Earths Surface
3: UP and into the Space Station {sky Lab} (etc)
4: from the "FRAMES" reference :|({[
5: wold it be :|({[. to :|({.[
6: OR have I got it all wrong? :|{(.[ to :|{.([
7: which seams more reasonable on second thought
8: WHICH brings the following concept into view
9: :{{|{({{{[{ ? you know i dont know but i'll try to reintroduce the parameter anyway

Was this reply addressed to me? If so, I fail to understand how inertia keeps a distant galaxy revolving around the Earth. Seems to me that galaxy would fly off tangentially, since Earth has only miniscule gravity compared to the galaxy.

Or have I missed your point?

But that is Newtonian analysis. In GR, everything "works out," that's exactly what the "general" part of GR means--you can use any frame of reference, even rotating ones.

Actually, with Newtonian mechanics, one can use a completely arbitary coordinate system, as long as one introduces the appropriate inertial forces and the like to compensate.

So one has to have some coordinate-independent way of answering the question of which object moves around which, and I'd attempted to find such a way.

Even worse, it is possible to formulate Newtonian mechanics in such a way that it is also generally covariant--that is, it acts just like Newtonian mechanics and no "new" fictitious forces have to be introduced if you use arbitrary reference frames. That formulation is messy, though.
I understand that, I think. That is the baais of your statement "in most applications of GR, the space-time curvature is relatively weak, and space-time can be treated as special-relativistic space-time with some small extra GR terms," right? However, in this particular application, when GR is applied to geocentricism, the space-time curvature is not relatively weak. That is exactly why the approach does not work, in this instance.

<font size=-1>[Fixed quote]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-02-11 04:58 ]</font>