Ever read Eye in the Sky, by P.K. Dick?

__________________
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire.
"All your bias are belong to us" Ara Pacis.

There is still a problem with the idea the universe revolving around me, for instance, is really a viable reference frame. [Even I don't like this view. ] It may be a perfectly sound working frame, but it still lacks something not inherent in GR, apparently. For spacecraft, IIRC, NASA does not use a Geocentric frame of reference though they are, like us, on the Earth. If so, why do they choose one over another? I suppose one frame is superior in practicallity over another, though, admittedly, any frame could be used. Is this difficulty factor between frames something quantifiable in the foreseable future?

Could I say, instead, causality is not addressed in GR? Can we consider causal action to make one frame more viable than another, even though GR does not discriminate as to the results obtained by using any frame? In this sense alone, and in considering the kinematics of, say, our galaxy, wouldn't a galactic frame be superior to a helicocentric frame, and it superior to a Geocentric frame, etc? Or, must philosophy pick it up at this point?

[I realize we may be duplicating from an older thread, yet I suspect, at this point, we need not revive it.]

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board!

You ask, what is "special" about the Earth ie you're looking for some kind of justification that is outside the parameters of science. (What scientific instrument measures "special"? In what units is that measured?)

The approximate summing up of the hierarchy of motions to zero at our general position in space has been grudgingly admitted in astronomical literature, as witness the conclusions reached by Vera Rubin et al, who glumly pointed out the disturbing pre-Copernican implications of their research. (Cf. Rubin, V., N. Thonnard, M. S. Roberts, and J. A. Graham, "Motion of the Galaxy and Local Group Determined From the Velocity Anisotropy of Distant Sc I Galaxies I: The Data," Astronomical Journal 81:687-718, and the consequent analysis in ibid., pp. 719-737). Rubin's team at Jet Propulsion Laboratories was not the first nor last to publish on this matter -- this is not some isolated glitch in positional astronomy.

(Rubin is also credited as being the first scientist to propose the existence of dark matter. No slouch, she -- the Carnegie Institution put on a 2-day symposium in tribute to her Jan. 10-11, 2002, with Dr. Allan Sandage giving the keynote address. She's no geocentrist, either, so her findings can't be charged with being somehow "tainted.")

Note, also, the famed quasar distribution problem, exposed most notably by Y. P. Varshni, who determined that a sampling of 384 quasars showed they fell onto 57 shells concentric around our position. Note what this distinguished astrophysicist (University of Ottawa) says about the matter, for if the red shift is a cosmological phenomenon, then "the Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes."

Varshni says this, not because he is a geocentrist (he's not), but because he opposes the idea that red shifts are cosmological in scope. Since the majority of astronomers believe the redshift is cosmological in scope, Varshni points out the soft underbelly of that hypothesis: the earth's position is central, and the concentric shelling phenomenon would not be observed elsewhere. (Note, for accuracy's sake, that Varshni is speaking about our general position, since the error in measurement is too large to determine the precise center of the 57 concentric shells of quasars. But the abandonment of acentrism and adoption of our location as central remains the core of his argumentation.)

Geocentrists are being scientific and objective when they simply report these facts and take them at face value. You can't let a piece of scientific evidence go without putting spin on it (no pun intended). We let the chips lie where they fall -- you keep rearranging them to suit your preconceived notions -- particularly, the notion that the center of the universe (if such there be) is anywhere but here.

Varshni and Rubin report that our position is central and stationary, respectively. This is based on scientific observations published in refereed scientific journals. Who is being evasive about the data, who is smearing lipstick on the Copernican pig, when it comes to these purely scientific observations?

Haven't been there and this still doesn't tell me your definition of "antigeocentrism." (Doesn't answer the other questions either.)

And unless you want to get extremely pedantic about reference frames, what is wrong with stating that the earth is rotating?

Because this is the Questions and Answers forum, not the ATM forum. Your question has been answered from the mainstream science position. We're done - unless you are arguing for an ATM position.

__________________
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

Actually, you CAN debate non-relativistically without further specification, because all non-relativistic models must confront the Michelson-Morley null result.

One must account for the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale results as well as the Sagnac effect, while explaining the +376 ohm reactive impedance measured for free space. There is a disproportion between Michelson and Sagnac inconsistent with the respective magnitudes of motion. The models fall into aether and non-aether models (since we've knocked the relativistic Dirac aether out of contention by specifying for non-relativistic options).

The non-aether models don't account for the impedance (and note that spacetime foam is itself an aether as Vigier has shown, so appeal to zero point energy can't fall in this category). The aether models posit an aether entrainment mechanism, but such models require a gradient in the entrainment, and the magnitude of the entrainment is in inverse proportion to the supposed motions of the Earth through the aether (daily rotation versus annual revolution around the sun), which is self-contradictory. We would further ask of a model that it account for the Planck Density value as well.

So, one CAN discuss the models by categorical attributes as outlined above.

Since I mentioned spacetime foam and the Planck Density, I'll add this: Redmount and Suen have shown that spacetime foam made of virtual particles (the model usually adopted) is not stable against decay into topological anomalies (worm holes, etc.). For this reason, the notion of so-called "empty space" having an actual density equal to the Planck Density is vastly preferable (real subquantum particles, not virtual particles). The background material to flesh this out is found in Markov's research on maximon "liquids" that form a quasi-isotropical space (see his chapter in the 1983 volume, "The Very Early Universe," ed. by Stephen Hawking, et al.)

The Saint, I still have two posts waiting to be answered (in this thread alone, there are quite a few in other threads, but let's forget about these). I would like an answer to those from you.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Please reframe (pun intended!) your questions.

We can disprove this several ways: (1) show that the elf is in the front yard; (2) show that the elf is visible; (3) show that the elf was actually a misidentified gnome; (4) show you don't own the backyard. Conversely, (5) compare an enumeration of all elves elsewhere with the known world population of elves: if they're all accounted for, there can be no elf in your backyard.

A polygraph test is out of the question -- the invisible elf may tamper with the scribing pens to make it look like you were lying when you affirmed his existence, and he could hold the pens steady when you denied his existence. (Elves are such contrarians. They think it's fun to play chicken, epistemologically.)

Then there's the approach that logicians call "argumentum ad baculum." It literally means, to argue with a stick: to threaten physical violence until you've recanted the offending claim, and to resort to actual violence if necessary to secure the required concession.

The big problem, of course, is that astronomers think that 90% or more of the universe is composed of dark matter: a form of matter that has never been detected and whose properties are essentially unknown. (Its presence is wholly inferred to protect sacred assumptions about the age of the universe that velocity dispersions would otherwise discredit: too many systems undergoing such mechanical dissolution exhibit anomalously small ages without that extra undetected gravitational mass to save the appearances.) Since this ad hoc invention has gained credulous currency, it may be the elf is made out of dark matter. In fact, I tend to put elves and dark matter in the same category. Maybe elves are the missing mass of the universe (for folks not willing to attribute mass to the neutrino, for instance). Given the relative proportion of dark matter to real matter, I think it's actually easiest to prove you're wrong on this count: your backyard has to be filled with MANY elves made of dark matter. So, we'd thereby disprove your claim of a single elf.

There is a category of question to which Aristotle directs a transcendental response: argument from the impossibility of the contrary. The elf question doesn't directly satisfy the parameters of this form of proof, at least as phrased.

Although I could continue to intuit new proofs, I have to be practical and ask myself, is this a good use of my time? How productive is this exercise, really? Is there an option already touched upon that has practical, long-lasting benefits? I'm pleased to see that there was such an option: argumentum ad baculum. You'll remember the drill in Victor Hugo's "Count of Monte Cristo": the warden proposes what he thinks is a reasonable test for the man who claims God exists. "I'll have you beaten continuously until God stops me." I think Hugo is on to something here. The person claiming the invisible elf exists should be beaten until the elf stops the assault. If elves were willing to help out the shoemaker and his wife, and fight alongside hobbits and humans, surely they'll intercede to prevent a beating from becoming fatal. You can look this kind of behavior up in the local bookstore, under the category of Elf Help books.

First post:
Second post:
I'll come back to the rest of my second post later, this will do for now. I haven't rephrased anythng as I guess the questions are quite clear.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

What would that be?
I think that the answer to all four questions (did I miss any? ) is "no". As I said in the last post, "The 'puzzle pieces' fit together in all frames." Whatever cause you've identified in one frame is still the same cause (in perhaps different form) in the other frame.

N C More's bullet proof vest really is bullet proof.

It most certainly can be separated from theology, and as you've been instructed now on numerous occasions, this is a science forum -- not a place to introduce or pursue religious discussions.

Your recurrent disregard for our forum rules has resulted in the termination of your account.