PDA

View Full Version : Einstein sustains Geocentricity?



Dunash
2002-Feb-07, 12:42 AM
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

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Feb-07, 02:46 AM
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 (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=425&forum=1), 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?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-07, 06:33 AM
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.

Dunash
2002-Feb-07, 01:49 PM
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!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-07, 03:11 PM
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.

lpetrich
2002-Feb-07, 09:18 PM
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>

2002-Feb-08, 02:13 AM
<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
:|({[

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-08, 02:23 AM
On 2002-02-07 16:18, lpetrich wrote:
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.
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.

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-08, 11:57 AM
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? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif I honestly have never read anything such in my Bible that could even be remotely linked to goecentrism.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-08, 01:21 PM
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.

2002-Feb-08, 03:00 PM
<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
9:parameter into Rectangular coordinate formuli thus y=2x will be y=t x=t/2 </pre>

2002-Feb-08, 03:07 PM
<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?

2002-Feb-08, 03:12 PM
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>

Dunash
2002-Feb-08, 05:56 PM
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).

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-08, 09:36 PM
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...

Dunash
2002-Feb-08, 10:01 PM
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!

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-08, 10:25 PM
On 2002-02-08 17:01, Dunash wrote:
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?


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

Your turn!

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-08, 10:39 PM
On 2002-02-08 17:25, Donnie B. wrote:
In a word, inertia. In four words, conservation of angular momentum.

Your turn!

You answered your own questions. Or close enough.

2002-Feb-09, 02:24 PM
<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

Donnie B.
2002-Feb-09, 02:55 PM
On 2002-02-08 17:39, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-02-08 17:25, Donnie B. wrote:
In a word, inertia. In four words, conservation of angular momentum.

Your turn!

You answered your own questions. Or close enough.


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?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-09, 03:29 PM
On 2002-02-09 09:55, Donnie B. wrote:
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.
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.

lpetrich
2002-Feb-11, 05:07 AM
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.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-11, 09:57 AM
On 2002-02-11 00:07, lpetrich wrote:
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.
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.

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.

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>

ChallegedChimp
2002-Feb-11, 10:00 AM
Thanks for the article Dunash. I am rereading a lot more than I should trying to understand it, gimme a couple o decades /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

As for the sun being on the 4th day... and the earth on the 1st... perhaps that the earth was there by its lonesome, but once God ignited ye olde big ball o light in the sky, it's stronger gravity then pulled the earth into its orbit. With no sun there, I would certainly consider earth an unhospitable place. If I am not bad wrong (which I usually am) there can be rogue planets earth sized or larger floating throughout the universe with no local gravity source currently pulling them in yet right? I only go from my (extremly) limited knowledge of Kuiper belt objects that are pretty darn big floating around outside of Pluto's orbit. (none as big as the earth though, that goes off into the Planet X and Nemesis circles methinks)
So for three days, the universe might've been going around the earth till the sun came onto the scene. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
And with that a question for my own enlightment:

So, the Earth could have been without a sun for a bit. I mean, (going way out into uncharted intellectual territory of solar system formation for me here), but does a forming body require a "sun" or other large gravitational body to be in the area for it to form?

Even the stars methinks had to start accreting their mass somewhere. Unless when the Bang went off there were large chunks of matter instanteously created and the smaller ones just started forming by their own gravity? Sheesh...I lost meself...time to go back to me banana. Yellow, has a peel, tastes good. Much easier to contemplate. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ChallegedChimp on 2002-02-11 05:04 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Feb-11, 05:37 PM
So, the Earth could have been without a sun for a bit. I mean, (going way out into uncharted intellectual territory of solar system formation for me here), but does a forming body require a "sun" or other large gravitational body to be in the area for it to form?

Even the stars methinks had to start accreting their mass somewhere. Unless when the Bang went off there were large chunks of matter instanteously created and the smaller ones just started forming by their own gravity? Sheesh...I lost meself...time to go back to me banana. Yellow, has a peel, tastes good. Much easier to contemplate. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ChallegedChimp on 2002-02-11 05:04 ]</font>


Count me in on the bananas! (And pears! Yum!)

One could, with some difficulty, imagine the earth, alone in the void, floating along, and, by an incredible stroke of luck, got captured by the sun. Unlikely, but, hey, not impossible...

Until you note all the other planets going around the sun... Either the same origin applies to them all -- unlikely to the ninth power -- or, perhaps, the earth is unique -- which notion is undermined (but not destroyed) by the similarities between Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars...

Dunash has refused to accept that the same equations that defend a geocentric cosmos also support a cosmos centered on Tau Ceti, or the Triffid Nebula, or one of the quasar galaxies at the edge of our range of observation... There is, to date, no reason at all to see the earth's position in space as unique...

(One can do the very same mathematical game and "invert" the cosmos, so that the distant cosmos is the "center," and the center of the earth is out at the infinite reaches of foreverness. Just multiply everything by the term "1/r". Everything still balances just fine, although it is a calculational nightmare!)

Silas

ToSeek
2002-Feb-11, 07:05 PM
On 2002-02-11 12:37, Silas wrote:

Dunash has refused to accept that the same equations that defend a geocentric cosmos also support a cosmos centered on Tau Ceti, or the Triffid Nebula, or one of the quasar galaxies at the edge of our range of observation...


Or the tip of my little finger, as I keep pointing out. Since no one has refuted this hypothesis and mainstream science has suppressed any research into the subject, it therefore must undoubtedly be the truth. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Silas
2002-Feb-11, 11:13 PM
On 2002-02-11 14:05, ToSeek wrote:
Or the tip of my little finger, as I keep pointing out. Since no one has refuted this hypothesis and mainstream science has suppressed any research into the subject, it therefore must undoubtedly be the truth. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif


When I stop to think of all the places that finger has been, the calculational task of plotting the course of the cosmos that revolves around it quite staggers me. For simplicity of the math, if no other reason, may we use the average center-of-mass of your entire body instead?

(On the other hand, the jiving of your small finger on the high notes while jitterbugging on the joanna might be tied in to the behavior of pulsars...)

Silas

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Feb-12, 12:09 PM
On 2002-02-11 12:37, Silas wrote:
Dunash has refused to accept that the same equations that defend a geocentric cosmos also support a cosmos centered on Tau Ceti, or the Triffid Nebula, or one of the quasar galaxies at the edge of our range of observation...
Is that true, Dunash? I thought differently, that Dunash did accept that, as far as the equations go. It's just that geocentrists also accept other evidence that is more ... theological.

ToSeek
2002-Feb-12, 01:41 PM
On 2002-02-11 18:13, Silas wrote:

When I stop to think of all the places that finger has been, the calculational task of plotting the course of the cosmos that revolves around it quite staggers me. For simplicity of the math, if no other reason, may we use the average center-of-mass of your entire body instead?

(On the other hand, the jiving of your small finger on the high notes while jitterbugging on the joanna might be tied in to the behavior of pulsars...)



For the reasons you state, I believe further investigation is merited before entertaining alternate hypotheses. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

P.S. How do you know where my finger has been? Or should I ask?

2002-Feb-12, 03:00 PM
<a name="20020212.8:18"> page 20020212.8:18 aka ME-
1::|({[
2: mere fraction of a second.
3:|
4: Gravitational waves are ripples in the fabric
5: are set off by accelerations of massive bodies
6: supernovas. Albert Einstein theorized they exi
7: evidence confirmed his prediction in the 1970s
8:they have not yet been detected directly,"
9: ------
8: Line 4 thru 7 are extracts from the Casinni
7: pages as was line 8 different paragraph
6:==============
5: i dislike proving the "YEAR" was so and so
4: or such and such by the positivFISTED
3: and for my part will say
2: DARN they have been detected
1: GRAVITY WAVES _HAVE_
-- I did it myself way back in Solar cycle 22
the one B4 this last one thats just ending.
YES, way back in Cycle 22 [oK 1986 if you must do it your way]
and I just coppied what was already done in the April "_RADIO-ELECTRONICS_" of that year.. How S.. {oh never mind}

Dunash
2002-Feb-16, 09:07 AM
Until the Michelson-Morley experiment, as per Michelson's dying wish, is carried out on the Moon, scientifically we are all obliged to accept GR's postulate that all center's are equally valid, though theologically I favour the Earth's centrality. Now let me ask you: Shock, Horror! IF the interference fringes did show up on the Moon (or Space-Shuttle? Why did NASA refuse at the last minute to carry out Van der Kamp's Canadian Institute of Science test on SR on the 1986 Columbia flight?), would you have the intellectual honesty to revamp your view of the Earth's location?

DStahl
2002-Feb-16, 09:38 AM
HUb': What! Directly? No
sneaky inference from the
orbital periods of pulsars?
You should have published!
Jeez! You could be famous!

Well, I expect there are a
lot of interesting observations
to be gathered from the
universe if we are just clever
enough to look in the right
places. LIGO may not be the
only way to see gravity waves.

I'll ask the moderator about
registering for physicsforums.com
using Lynx and Linux. Maybe he
(Greg Barnhardt) knows of some
tricks. It's a fun forum.

--Don Stahl