PDA

View Full Version : Evidence for heliocentricity



ToSeek
2002-Apr-09, 07:33 PM
Just came across this Web page:

Evidence for heliocentricity (http://www.student.oulu.fi/~ktikkane/AST/helioc.html)

Any comments (particularly from geocentrists)?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-09, 07:48 PM
I need to think about it more, but all he can really say from his observations is that the star is moving relative to the Earth but not the Sun. If the Universe revolves around the fixed Earth, he would see the same thing.

We have hashed out before that really the only difference between geo- and helio- centrism is a change in coordinates. It's the geocentrists who make the jump to saying geocentrism is the One True Way. I disagree.

Firefox
2002-Apr-09, 08:03 PM
One thing I cannot understand, with geocentrist attempts to use science to further their arguments, is the question of how do you get a star over a million times the mass of the Earth to revolve around our planet in a stable fashion. That combined with the rest of the universe boggles the heck out of me.


-Adam

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Firefox on 2002-04-09 16:05 ]</font>

Jigsaw
2002-Apr-10, 12:40 AM
Yeah, I'd like to have that explained, too...

All I can figure is that since geocentrists usually use the Bible as their source, that they must be reasoning that it's God's will that the enormous star orbits tamely around the tiny planet. After all, God created both the star and the planet, not to mention the laws of physics, so I guess He can violate them if He wants to.

But I'm just guessing at the train of thought here.

Prince
2002-Apr-10, 01:26 AM
Bouw's Firmament theory explains how the universe can rotate once per day,to his satisfaction anyway!

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

Firefox
2002-Apr-10, 01:43 AM
That site did little to satisfy my query. You haven't explained how billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars each can revolve around our puny little planet at vast distances.


-Adam

DStahl
2002-Apr-10, 08:30 AM
I think, having yelled and hollered at Bouw and been trounced thoroughly, that the answer is not that they orbit the Sun (not the Earth) but that the universe revolves around the Sun. (And the Sun revolves around the Earth, don't you see.)

There's a difference between "orbit" and "revolve" in this case. Imagining that space is a tangible thing, like water, in which the planets, stars, and galaxies are embedded, one would imagine an orbit as causing a planet to swing about its parent star, plowing through the water of space. But in the geocentric view, the water itself is revolving, carrying everything with it. Planets still follow their orbits, plowing through the "water" of space around their respective stars and galaxies, but the whole schmeer is rotating around the Sun, which is rotating (not orbiting) around the Earth. This is a very rough conceptual analogy and will fail if taken too seriously.

What the BA is referring to in coordinate systems is the fact, which I now believe having had it drubbed into me, that general relativity allows one to construct a coordinate system such that any chosen point is motionless and the rest of the universe is in motion. No violation of gravitational nor relativitistic effects will ensue. Granted, one may encounter hideous calculational difficulties navigating a spacecraft around the moons of Jupiter if one sticks to a geocentric coordinate system, but that's no skin off Bouw's nose.

Er, have I managed to make the issue clear as mud? *sigh*

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-10 04:31 ]</font>

Firefox
2002-Apr-10, 11:34 AM
No, I think you did a good job disseminating their argument. You're right, of course, that using a geocentric model would play havoc on interplanetary navigation.

Still, if they argue the Sun orbits the Earth, that would certainly violate more than a few laws of orbital mechanics and physics, in my view.


-Adam

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-10, 11:44 AM
On 2002-04-10 07:34, Firefox wrote:
Still, if they argue the Sun orbits the Earth, that would certainly violate more than a few laws of orbital mechanics and physics, in my view.

That's a Newtonian perspective. From the modern perspective, it doesn't: "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless." --The Evolution of Physics, by Einstein and Infeld.

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 12:26 PM
I'm sure I'll ruffle a few feathers with this response. It's not a scientific response, but a philosophic response.

If you believe that God did create the universe, I really doubt that it would be that much problem for him to make and keep the universe as geocentric. I'm sure from an energy perspective, making the universe rotate around the Earth is less than the amount of energy it took to create the universe.

BTW, I don't believe in either the sun-centered or Earth-centered ideas of the universe.

I believe that the Bible does not state anywhere that the Earth is the center of the universe. Also, it describes very little of the workings of the universe.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-10, 12:48 PM
On 2002-04-10 08:26, jrkeller wrote:
I'm sure from an energy perspective, making the universe rotate around the Earth is less than the amount of energy it took to create the universe.

How can you be so sure? /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

jrkeller
2002-Apr-10, 02:22 PM
I can't be sure, but wouldn't the energy needed to make matter be

E=Mc2.

For the energy of making the universe rotate about the Earth or Sun, we would need to know the energy required to move each particle of mass around the center of rotation which would be the kinetic energy.

KE = 1/2 mV2

I could convert to a polar system, but the equation still holds. If c, the speed of light, is limit, then the energy would be less.

If I'm wrong forgive me, because it has been years since I've done this type of work.

SeanF
2002-Apr-10, 02:28 PM
But if c is a limit, then there couldn't be anything further than about 3.8 light-hours away or else it'd be circumscribing a path of more than 24 light-hours every 24 hours . . .

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-10, 02:49 PM
On 2002-04-10 10:22, jrkeller wrote:
If c, the speed of light, is limit, then the energy would be less.

Are you now saying that it would be less?

How can you be sure of that?

ToSeek
2002-Apr-10, 02:57 PM
On 2002-04-10 10:28, SeanF wrote:
But if c is a limit, then there couldn't be anything further than about 3.8 light-hours away or else it'd be circumscribing a path of more than 24 light-hours every 24 hours . . .


That's what I've always wanted explained about relativity allowing for geocentricity. I haven't heard one yet (at least not that I understood!).

Silas
2002-Apr-10, 03:42 PM
On 2002-04-10 10:57, ToSeek wrote:


On 2002-04-10 10:28, SeanF wrote:
But if c is a limit, then there couldn't be anything further than about 3.8 light-hours away or else it'd be circumscribing a path of more than 24 light-hours every 24 hours . . .


That's what I've always wanted explained about relativity allowing for geocentricity. I haven't heard one yet (at least not that I understood!).



I was in the same boat when I first encountered Dunash and his views. What it turns out is that Einstein and Mach actually worked out a system of equations that would permit the cosmos, as a whole, to be turning. No objects out there are "moving" faster than c with respect to this rotating frame of reference, nor with respect to one another.

Of course, the same equations can be used to support the rotation of the cosmos around Mars, or rho Vela, or anything...or even nothing. The same equations can be used to support the notion that the earth actually rotates in 48 hours, but that the cosmos is moving *backwards* around us once ever 24 hours, so we appear to have a 24 hour day.

Dunash and the geocentrists insist on only one member of this infinite class of mathematical solutions, and dismiss all of the others, and that, I believe, is the point that the Bad Astronomer finds most objectionable.

If x can be any positive integer, why do they insist that it be 17,871,777,165,650?

Silas

Dunash
2002-Apr-10, 03:52 PM
If you can't accept Bouw's Firmament 24 hour rotation evidence, general and special relativity can be invoked. The kinetic energy of the objects circling the earth increases as one goes out, away from
the earth. Through special relativity's E=mc^2, the kinetic energyincreases the local gravitational field's strength, overcoming the centrifugal and coriolis effects. Any spin rate can be accommodated
by this technique. It also solves the speed-of-light problem since the speed of light depends directly on the gravitational field strength, so a physical object can travel billions of times the speed of light
relative to the earth as long as the local gravitational field strength
(a tension) supports a local speed of light in excess of that physical speed.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-10, 03:58 PM
On 2002-04-10 11:52, Dunash wrote:
If you can't accept Bouw's Firmament 24 hour rotation evidence, general and special relativity can be invoked.

Ah, but he has no evidence. Just his assertions based on his religious beliefs. I have posted this before, and I'll do it again:

Geocentrism, as advocated by creationists or
other religiously fundamental people, is certainly wrong.

How, you may ask? What is going on is that you can do a change of reference
frame to a geocentric one, and by relativity the math must still work out.
I readily admit that. I do not understand all the math involved, but I
will take it for granted that it works out, and that physically,
geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.

But note
the words "just as valid". Also, by relativity, it cannot
be any more valid; geocentrism is just another change of frame
(although to a non-inertial one).

What geocentrists are saying is
that geocentrism is the one, true frame. Creationists must say that
because that is what is says in the bible. Now pay attention here,
because this is the important bit: to say geocentrism isn't wrong, you
have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as
any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to
ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is
therefore self-contradictory. It doesn't work.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-10, 04:07 PM
On 2002-04-10 11:42, Silas wrote:
What it turns out is that Einstein and Mach actually worked out a system of equations that would permit the cosmos, as a whole, to be turning. No objects out there are "moving" faster than c with respect to this rotating frame of reference, nor with respect to one another.

Not Mach, necessarily. He actually had a lot of skepticism about relativity.

For ToSeek: Special relativity allows us to choose any inertial frame of reference, without changing the physical laws. General relativity allows any frame, even rotating ones, without changing the physical laws.

So, I guess your question would be, what is it about those physical laws that would allow such apparently incredible speeds, if general relativity is to retain any semblance of special relativity's constraint on the speed of light.

In order for the universe to spin around the Earth, a great field must be in place--which may or may not be self-sustaining. The speed of light in GR depends upon that field. That distant matter may cause inertia here, if it can be self-sustaining.

In the sixties, Dennis Sciama calculated what reasonible values would be needed in order for distant matter to cause inertia. His conclusion? An amount of dark matter about the same as what is now sought based upon other evidence. Coincidence? Naw. Sciama has been at the forefront of the dark matter search.

Whup, just thought of something.

DStahl
2002-Apr-10, 06:22 PM
In re Bouw's evidence for the geocentric hypothesis: On the old board I challenged Bouw to produce his evidence supporting geocentrism over acentrism. He said I was putting words in his mouth. I said, wittily, "Huh? Wha..?" He replied, I never said I have scientific evidence supporting geocentrism. To me the matter is one of theology, not of science.

Now, I don't have the original exchange, though I wish I did so I could quote it exactly. But I think the paraphrase above is a fair representation.

So the BA is absolutely right. The only evidence favoring geocentrism over acentrism is theological, not scientific. And to explain how the information codifying the way earthquakes affect the universal rotation relative to the Earth spreads throughout the firmament virtually instantaneously, geocentrists must disbelieve special relativity and invoke such oddities as Tom Van Flandern's superluminal gravity theory. To me, they appear rather like a vengeful Jonah trying to turn the tables by swallowing a whale. I certainly can't swallow Van Flandern's theory, and as I've noted elsewhere I have yet to find a professional physicist who doesn't say it's erroneous. And as far as I know there has never been any experimental evidence disproving special relativity.

To me it seems geocentrism requires pretty drastic surgery on the body of scientific knowledge in order to accomodate one interpretation of certain Bible verses. But hey, that's just me.

--Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-10 14:23 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-10, 06:35 PM
On 2002-04-10 14:22, DStahl wrote:
So the BA is absolutely right. The only evidence favoring geocentrism over acentrism is theological, not scientific.

But the converse is also true: there is no evidence favoring acentrism over geocentrism...


And to explain how the information codifying the way earthquakes affect the universal rotation relative to the Earth spreads throughout the firmament virtually instantaneously, geocentrists must disbelieve special relativity

...consequently, I don't think that is true, that geocentrists must find fault with special relativity.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-10, 06:37 PM
On 2002-04-10 14:22, DStahl wrote:
And to explain how the information codifying the way earthquakes affect the universal rotation relative to the Earth spreads throughout the firmament virtually instantaneously, geocentrists must disbelieve special relativity

AHA! That is just the thing I have been looking for; a way to show that by turning the tables, so to speak, you wind up needing to throw out relativity. That's a beautiful argument, and I hope you don't mind if I use it.

Mr.K.A.T.
2002-Apr-10, 07:44 PM
On 2002-04-10 11:58, The Bad Astronomer wrote:

frame to a geocentric one, and by relativity the math must still work out.
I readily admit that. I do not understand all the math involved, but I
will take it for granted that it works out, and that physically,
geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.



What teases me here are the words. Mathematically "geocentrism as valid as" yes but physically (which I'd see materially= reality) I'd like to say "earth rotates sun".
I'd like to say "physically geocentrism not as valid".

Btw,I made the heliocentricity web mentioned in the beginning. Recently I found my evidence fragile against Bouw's when I read creationist Dr. Faulkner's web-article:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/TJv15n2Geocentrism.asp

Regards, Kari.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr.K.A.T. on 2002-04-10 15:52 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mr.K.A.T. on 2002-04-10 15:54 ]</font>

DStahl
2002-Apr-10, 09:06 PM
BA, I'm tickled pink that you're interested in the earthquake-rotation argument. Explore all the ramifications before you use it though. You might check with someone at the Canterbury (NZ) ring-laser project for figures on rotational changes.

[Added later: This observation isn't original to me, though I can't remember where I first read it. Probably somewhere on this very forum...anyone?]

Grapes, I disagree--I think that while general relativity is symmetric with respect to any coordinate system, and therefore with respect to geocentric, heliocentric, or acentric models, other considerations are not symmetric. For instance, the big bang plus inflation gives no hint how or why the Earth should end up at the center of a rotating universe. The acentric model requires no such justification. The CBR is anisotropic unless one corrects for peculiar motion of the the Earth, the Sun, and the Milky Way with respect to the local Hubble flow. This is explicable, though awkward, under the geocentric model; it's natural and expected in the acentric model.

Well, that's off the top of my head. Of course anything can be finessed by an omnipotent deity rigging the books. Interestingly, the contemporary philosopher Michael Martin has opined that in such a universe even logic (and by extension science) would be contingent on the deity's whim in creating and maintaining the universe, and therefore neither can be proven to be effective tools for understanding said universe. (Note well that "proven"--they may seem effective, they may even be effective, they just cannot be absolutely proven to be so.) In other words, what humans call logical may be incorrect if viewed from the frame of an hypothetical deity.

Sheesh. Wander not into the lairs of philosophers--you Kant ever escape, nor can any one ex-Hume you...

--Don Stahl



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-10 18:26 ]</font>

Dunash
2002-Apr-10, 09:06 PM
Fred Hoyle in his biography of Copernicus already explained a 24 hour universe rotation
without resorting to a super-dense firmament.

The answer is that all the stars and galaxies orbit the center of mass of the universe. The earth is located at the universe’s center of mass, and the axis of rotation of the universe intersects the earth’s north and south poles.

Hoyle explained it using the famous “barycentric” argument often (wrongly) used AGAINST geocentricity and offered a barycentric argument FOR geocentricity: Consider the earth
and the Sun. The earth in fact does NOT rotate around the sun, but rather, the sun and the earth BOTH rotate around the common center of mass of the sun-earth system
which is many miles from the Sun’s center, but still within the sun’s volume. As you add more entities (like stars) to the picture, the resulting center of rotation grows farther away from the sun’s center, even being eventually found well outside its volume. The more mass you add to the picture ( = the less you impose arbitrary tunnel-vision on the scope of the system being considered), the farther the central rotation will be predicted to be. Hoyle says that on geocentric grounds one would extend the process of “increasing
the limits of integration” (my words, not his) until the entire mass of the universe has been considered. Then, and only then, can one say that one was properly determined the center of mass of the universe, and thus the axis of rotation. We hold that the ultimate center is located at the Earth’s position, and only pure metaphysical prejudice (not empirical evidence) impels people to resist adopting this perspective. The fact that the rotational velocity exceeds the speed of light is irrelevant, as shown by Bondi’s 1994 paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Astronomical Society on “Angular Momentum in
Cylindrically Symmetric Systems.”

Roy Batty
2002-Apr-10, 09:33 PM
"We hold that the ultimate center is located at the Earth's position, and only pure metaphysical prejudice (not empirical evidence) impels people to resist adopting this perspective"

As opposed to 'only pure theological prejudice'.. wheres the empirical evidence that the ultimate centre is the Earth?
Hmm.. what exactly is 'metaphysical prejudice' anyway? (worried in case i'm missing a PC thing /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif)

_________________
N6MAA10816

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Roy Batty on 2002-04-10 17:37 ]</font>

lpetrich
2002-Apr-11, 05:41 AM
I'm not impressed with the coordinate-system argument, because that argument could also prove:

That the Earth is flat.

That the Earth is hollow, and that we are living on the inside of it. A theory that had been proposed by a certain Cyrus Reed Teed, a.k.a. "Koresh", a century ago.

If there is some coordinate-independent way of ruling out these possibilities, then there ought to be some similar coordinate-independent way of deciding heliocentrism vs. geocentrism.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-11, 07:31 AM
On 2002-04-10 14:37, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
That is just the thing I have been looking for; a way to show that by turning the tables, so to speak, you wind up needing to throw out relativity.

Well, superficial violations of special relativity occur all the time--once you are no longer in an inertial reference frame, special relativity is not precisely valid. Anytime your reference frame is bigger than the microscopic level, you're going to have problems.

You have to be careful when making such arguments, or you play into the hands of the ones you are arguing against.

Think about it. General relativity says that any reference frame, even rotating ones, are valid (this is more than just a change of coordinate systems). Although quantum mechanics and general relativity have not yet been integrated into a single Theory of Everything, no one has come up with conclusive proof that General Relavity is wrong. If you try to assert that geocentrism (just a special case of a particular reference frame) is wrong, you will find yourself in an infinite argument, with you on the side trying to describe how general relativity is wrong.

Why is it more than just a change of coordinate systems? Consider this: clearly, Newtonian physics does not say that any reference frame is valid, even though a simple change of coordinates should work with Newtonian physics as well.

DStahl
2002-Apr-11, 08:22 AM
Dunash: "The answer is that all the stars and galaxies orbit the center of mass of the universe. The earth is located at the universe’s center of mass, and the axis of rotation of the universe intersects the earth’s north and south poles."

Hmmm. Be careful, here...once you begin to speak of distant galaxies truly orbiting a center-of-mass, controlled by quasi-Newtonian orbital mechanics, don't you have to start worrying about velocities--ie grossly superluminal orbital velocities for any body outside the orbit of Neptune or thereabouts? In the GR frame-of-reference argument this is avoided, but one cannot have it both ways, I think: one cannot say that the celestial bodies "orbit" the center of mass and still claim immunity from superluminal velocities through definition of a general relativistic reference frame. I may be wrong. (Personal score: Wrong, 3 X 10<sup>8</sup>; Right, 5)

--------

Grapes, I'm not sure how one would end up arguing against general relativity. As I see it the situation is fairly straightforward: the ring laser interferometer in New Zealand has measured changes in the Earth's rotation rate caused by shifting mass in the Earth's crust: ie earthquakes. On the geocentric view, earthquakes on a stationary Earth must cause an effect which propagates to the farthest reaches of the visible universe, changing the universe's rotation rate, in a neligible amount of time. (The idea, I think, is that the mass of the universe is acts via Mach's principle to create the Sagnac effect in the interferometer. Therefore the mass of the universe must change its rotation rate within the timeframe observed at the ring laser.)

Of course this superluminal propagation of information violates special relativity in a seriously non-superficial, non-trivial way. That's why Bouw is a staunch defender of Van Flandern's superluminal gravity: it too assaults special relativity.

They've got a tough job disproving the special theory of relativity, though. As far as I know no plausible experiment has ever violated special relativity, and a great deal of physics uses special relativistic kinematics with stunning success.

What I'm unsure of is whether a disproof of special relativity would also constitute a disproof of general relativity. Since SR is a special case of GR, if the special case were disproven wouldn't it follow that more general case would be crippled if not destroyed? I dunno, I'm too muzzy-headed to think straight right now.

Of course, if disproving the special case does disprove the more general in this instance then geocentrists are in the uncomfortable position of having to both rely on GR for their rotating universe and at the same time claim it is incorrect in order to have superluminal information transfer.

Night, all--

Don Stahl

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DStahl on 2002-04-11 04:34 ]</font>

2002-Apr-11, 08:56 AM
<a name="20020411.2:33"> page 20020411.2:33 aka Emerald ver
On 2002-04-11 04:22, DStahl wrote: To: http://www.dailyemerald.com
1: Calculus
2:Ch 10 Conics
3:TILT why does the book have to move
4:to some place i cant put my finger on it?
5: anyway1 it has to do with eclipse x^2+y^2=1
6: and2: with "rotation of the axis"
7: so the foci fall on the x{horizontal}
8: and/or Y-Axis{vertical
9:
10
1:while on the AXIS {of power} question
2:remember that I prefer the Tempral{time}
3:axis to be Verticle [down the page]
4:and across the page to be the other D'nbait
5:NOW 2:43 A.M. Where was I
6:elipse
7: ROTATE the axis nini
8: that eliminates the xy term in X^2+xy+Y^2=4
9: and something else i dont remember without the book
20
So yes; i believe theres a Rotation of the Axis {tempral}[term] being non parameterized!
and that id does matter how fast the spin happens

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-11, 10:34 AM
On 2002-04-11 04:22, DStahl wrote:
Of course this superluminal propagation of information violates special relativity in a seriously non-superficial, non-trivial way. That's why Bouw is a staunch defender of Van Flandern's superluminal gravity: it too assaults special relativity.

Everybody digs their own hole. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

It's not necessary to go to extremes. Jung conceived of an interconnected consciousness, that allowed the physical circumstances that molded our future to significantly influence trivial things like coin tosses in i ching--allowing fortune telling. The interconnectedness of the universe is no big leap, once you've assumed geocentrism, so superluminal speeds aren't necessary. A shift in the heavens associated with earthquakes could be the universe's response to the slow stress that preceded it.

Here's an example I'd been given before. Assume there is a toy top lying on a floor in a room. I walk in and spin it up. In the reference frame of the toy top, the universe is spinning madly about it. Does that mean that puny ol' me had just spun up the entire universe, in that reference frame? No, what it means is, in that reference frame, the universe was madly spinning and I spun up the top to match it. No superhuman power required, just a knowledge of how these reference frames work.

I am not a geocentrist, BTW.

Dunash
2002-Apr-11, 12:53 PM
The observations on Tikkanen's site equally prove the geocentric model. Did Mr Tikkanen even bother to examine the modern geocentric models? It certainly doesn't look like it. And where does he get the idea that geocentrists believe the speed of light is infinite?

His raw data, uncorrected to heliocentric coordinates but corrected to geocentric coordinates are more valuable
for what we're looking for, though RZ Cassiopeia is too close to the pole of the ecliptic for our needs.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-11, 02:25 PM
On 2002-04-10 17:06, Dunash wrote:
The answer is that all the stars and galaxies orbit the center of mass of the universe. The earth is located at the universe’s center of mass, and the axis of rotation of the universe intersects the earth’s north and south poles.


It is known that the direction of the Earth's poles wander with respect to the sky, and, in fact, it is highly probable that they wander with respect to the center of the Earth. One theory has it that the Moon stablizes the Earth's rotation; without it, the Earth might literally flip over.

This theory is not proven, but it is not stretch to imagine a large asteroid impact knocking the Earth's axis at a different tilt. Matter oif fact, it is almost certain that's how the Moon formed and we got our present 23.5 degree tilt.

So would you say that if a large asteroid hit the Earth, the entire Universe flips over, while the Earth remains "upright"?

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Apr-11, 02:28 PM
On 2002-04-11 03:31, GrapesOfWrath wrote:

Think about it. General relativity says that any reference frame, even rotating ones, are valid (this is more than just a change of coordinate systems.

I have no propblems with that, and that is exactly what I wrote on the first page of this thread.

I don't have problems with the change of coordinates. I do have problems with how information is transferred in those coordinates, as I posted in my entry just above this one. Why should the Universe slow its rotation when we have an earthquake? Why should the Universe flip over when we get hit by an asteroid?

The difference here is mathematics versus physical reality. Coordinate transforms are fine on paper, but they can stretch credulity beyond its tensile capacity when applied in the real world.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2002-04-11 12:51 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-11, 04:44 PM
On 2002-04-11 10:28, The Bad Astronomer The difference here is mathematics versus physical reality. Coordinate transforms are fine on paper, but they can stretch credulity beyond its tensile capacity when applied in the real world.

I don't think of it as merely coordinate transform. Someone else made the point that a coordinate transform could make the Earth flat--but that is not the case here. It's not mathematics versus physical reality, it's physics versus physical reality.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), physics is the best tool we have for interpreting physical reality. When we don't, we stumble.

DStahl
2002-Apr-11, 08:07 PM
Grapes of Wrath: "A shift in the heavens associated with earthquakes could be the universe's response to the slow stress that preceded it."

But Grapes, if the signal carrying information about the buildup of stress propagated at the speed of light, then at a distance of only 5 billion lightyears the universe would have to be responding to stress in the crust of a planet which had not yet even formed!

But your points are well-taken. I am assuming that logic and science are trustworthy. The Greek skeptics asserted that neither logic nor our perceptions can be proven trustworthy, hence Socrates said "All I know is that I know nothing." But if there is no possible proof that logic or perception yield Truth, then one might as well make useful assumptions--guesses, nothing more--which may prove useful. It's either make some assumptions or retire to the Bo tree.

So, anyways, one can

1. Assume that logic is the only Truth and perceptions are illusory.

2. Assume that perceptions are the only Truth and logic is illusory.

3. Assume that both contain elements of Truth and play them off against each other to determine where they are consistent.

Shoot, I see that I've not defined my terms properly. I would include emotional perceptions and religious faith or religious feeling as a subcategory of perception even though the feelings are perceived solely inside the mind and not through the senses.

Arrgh. The quicksand of epistemology is rising about my waist. Swiftly, then: I am arguing from position #3 with a scientific perspective. I can't argue against metaphysical Jungian interconnectedness nor against an omnipotence which could supernaturally stack the decks of logic and consensual reality because those positions do not admit the effectiveness of logic and scientific evidence.

So it goes. This is my last post on philosophy, by the way. Blech.

--Don Stahl

lpetrich
2002-Apr-12, 01:06 AM
I think that the solution to this coordinate conundrum may lie in the fact that physically-reasonable quantities are coordinate-independent. So all that is necessary is to define coordinate-independent ways of distinguishing approximate sphericity, inside from outside, and what moves around what.

This is rather easy with flat space-time, since in such a space-time, one can always choose a coordinate system that yields a constant metric, and then work with that coordinate system. "Weird" coordinate systems, like the sort that make the Earth flat or inside-out, will have non-constant metrics.

For curved space-time, life is more difficult, but in most cases, the metric is "almost" flat, meaning that one may be able to extend flat-space-time concepts to such cases.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-12, 07:26 AM
On 2002-04-11 16:07, DStahl wrote:
But Grapes, if the signal carrying information about the buildup of stress propagated at the speed of light, then at a distance of only 5 billion lightyears the universe would have to be responding to stress in the crust of a planet which had not yet even formed!

It's not that the distant inertial mass is responding to the inertial mass here instantaneously, it's that the inertia here is caused by the mass there. The same things that the mass here is responding to are not quite the same things that the mass there is responding to.

Remember, in that example, that mass "five billion lightyears" away revolves from one side of the Earth to the other in twelve hours! You have to be careful about how you calculate the speed of light, in general relativity.


But your points are well-taken. I am assuming that logic and science are trustworthy.

Well, so am I! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Kevin J. Ashley
2002-Apr-12, 10:00 PM
On 2002-04-09 15:48, The Bad Astronomer wrote:
I need to think about it more, but all he can really say from his observations is that the star is moving relative to the Earth but not the Sun. If the Universe revolves around the fixed Earth, he would see the same thing.

We have hashed out before that really the only difference between geo- and helio- centrism is a change in coordinates. It's the geocentrists who make the jump to saying geocentrism is the One True Way. I disagree.


Going back to the original geocentrist, Ptolemy, it is intersting to see what he wrote about this. In arguing against those who propounded that the the earth revolves he states in Book I-7, "However, they do not realize that, although there is perhaps nothing in the celestial phenomena which would count against that hypothesis, at least from simpler considerations, nevertheless from what would occur here on earth and in the air, one can see that such a notion is quite ridiculous."

It was not the Bible that caused Ptolemy to reject heliocentrism. It was the Aristotlean views of the nature of matter and motion. Ptolemy was a great observer of natural phenomena, but he was not an experimenter. He believed that if the Earth were in motion from west to east that clouds and flying object could not travel eastward since the motion of the Earth would always outrun them. He also believed that if the Earth were not fixed at the center of the universe then it would be falling, and since heavier and larger objects fall faster than small and light objects, the people would be left hanging in the air as the Earth fell out from beneath them. He did not question these obvious "truths" and it was left for 1400 years until the experimenters came along to refute what he said.

DStahl
2002-Apr-12, 10:38 PM
Grapes--I certainly didn't mean that you weren't using logic and scientific evidence, amigo, I was just noting that some creationists do argue from faith--the inerrancy of the Bible--and not from logic or scientific evidence. And to me the Jungian idea of interconnected consciousness enabling precognition (or whatever) seems quite an unscientific proposition as well.

You have a point about calculating lightspeed. I just read a fine description of why a geocentric universe does not violate physical laws but of course I skimmed over it because I was looking for something else. Have to go back and refind it.

--Don Stahl

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-13, 10:25 AM
On 2002-04-12 18:38, DStahl wrote:
Grapes--I certainly didn't mean that you weren't using logic and scientific evidence, amigo, I was just noting that some creationists do argue from faith--the inerrancy of the Bible--and not from logic or scientific evidence. And to me the Jungian idea of interconnected consciousness enabling precognition (or whatever) seems quite an unscientific proposition as well.

I think I know what you mean to say there, that you don't find very much scientific support for Jung's theories. Still, I'd like to point out that propositions usually can't be considered unscientific--it's how you deal with those propositions that becomes scientific, or not.

I think I could set up a nice little test of the realiability of the I Ching, and if it showed that tossing coins had good predictive power--well, what would you do? Repeat the test, right? Odds are, though, with enough people doing it, there are going to be some that get good results regardless of whether the I Ching is actually good.

What can those people do? Do they trust their own results above all else? Can they accept other people's negative results as unbiased, and equivalent to theirs?

informant
2002-Apr-13, 12:01 PM
(AMATEUR ALERT!)

All movement is relative. If I am walking along a street, the shops will appear to be moving from my point of view, whereas I might consider myself to be "walking on the same place".
But someone standing on the window of one of the shops would have a different perspective of things.
We don't usually think of ourselves as "walking on the same place", while the rest of the world moves under and around us, because it seems more... well... natural, and sensible, to think of the floor as static.
Then again, if you think that the Earth itself moves...

Anyway, my point is: to those who defend geocentrism: how would you find a criterion to objectively determine which is moving, the Earth or the rest of the universe?
It seems that in order to tell whether it's the Earth or everything else that moves, you would have to place yourself outside the Earth, in some reference frame that you knew was static itself, and then look back to Earth.
How would you go about finding such an exterior, independent, static reference frame?

Just adding my 2 cents.

2002-Apr-13, 12:12 PM
<a name="20020413.5:5"> page 20020413.5:5 aka May bee
On 2002-04-11 04:56, HUb' wrote: May FIRst

On 2002-04-11 04:22, DStahl wrote: To: http://www.dailyemerald.com
1: Calculus
2:Ch 10 Conics
3:TILT why does the book have to move
4:to some place i cant put my finger on it?
5: anyway1 it has to do with eclipse x^2+y^2=1
I FOUND THE BOOK >> I FOUND THE BOOK
15]University monitors networks feedback
8: 5:59 A.M. 1 more math minuite
7: now WHAT WAS THE POINT
6:oh yeah the parameter
5:I'll call THAt the rate of axis rotation paramater
4:HOW FAST DOES THE AXIS IN QUESTION ROTATE?
3:
2:geocentric?[ ]
1:Heliocentric[]
--Grab_A_Centric{}
The Watergate Principle:
Government corruption will always
be reported in the past tense.
20 yeay, tomorrow 3 posts to "Against" and 2 to Lun`A
So yes; i believe theres a Rotation of the Axis {tempral}[term] being non parameterized!
and that id does matter how fast the spin happens

Silas
2002-Apr-13, 09:55 PM
On 2002-04-13 08:01, informant wrote:
Anyway, my point is: to those who defend geocentrism: how would you find a criterion to objectively determine which is moving, the Earth or the rest of the universe?
It seems that in order to tell whether it's the Earth or everything else that moves, you would have to place yourself outside the Earth, in some reference frame that you knew was static itself, and then look back to Earth.
How would you go about finding such an exterior, independent, static reference frame?

Just adding my 2 cents.


According to special relativity...there is no such absolute frame of reference...

However, for those of us who follow the common-sense theory of testing an hypothesis, I think that the geocentrist and geostationary fantasy is trivially exploded by simple observations:

1) Earthquakes either cause the earth to vibrate...or the cosmos to vibrate.

2) Hurricanes either cause the earth's rotation to slow...or the cosmos's rotation to slow.

3) Either the earth's orbit around the sun causes the parallax of nearby stars...or the cosmos swings around the other side of the sun from the earth.

4) All of the planets and satellites in the solar system obey the laws of universal gravitation...or all of them except the earth do.

5) No motion of the "ether" has ever been detected, in thousands of experiments all over the surface of the earth. There is no "ether" ... or the earth is the only place in the cosmos that is perfectly fixed with respect to the ether.

6) The military has been launching test flights of ICBM's for decades now. They can now launch from North Dakota and hit a target in the Indian Ocean, and hit it accurately to within a few dozen yards. They take the rotation of the earth into account; if they didn't, they would miss.

In WWI, very large German cannon were aimed at Paris, from many miles away. They discovered that they had to correct for the rotation of the earth, or else they would miss their target.

7) The rotation of the earth is slowing, slightly but measureably, and this requires time-keepers to add a "leap second" to world clocks, once every few years. The amount of energy to slow the earth's rotation is large, by human standards...but the amount of energy required to slow the rotation of the entire cosmos by the same amount is greater by a factor of trillions of trillions.

Now...ask me about the Flat Earth... (Grin!)

Silas

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-14, 02:27 AM
On 2002-04-13 17:55, Silas wrote:
However, for those of us who follow the common-sense theory of testing an hypothesis, I think that the geocentrist and geostationary fantasy is trivially exploded by simple observations:

What about this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1010&forum=1&start=30) and that (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1010&forum=1&start=27)? I don't think you've answered those.

2002-Apr-14, 08:24 AM
sticking to my own version of
PARAMETERizing the rate of rotation
of the central axis {tempral} in any+centrism
exzerpyts from theMath books {now found}
Calculus Chapter 10 Conics 10.2 Ellipses
29. Find an equation for an ellipse with
vertices (5,0) and (-5,0) and eccentricity 3/5
calculusI Appendix A15 GRAPH x^2/a^2+y^2/b^2=1
see illistration Figure 15 in the book

Prince
2002-Apr-14, 08:56 AM
Once again Silas we repeat:

Bertrand Russell, the greatest atheist philosopher this century, indeed the High Priest of Atheism, a man you revere, nay "deify" even, HIMSELF said: "Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West as his predecessores held, THE OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME!. And by order and definition of Einstein, Mach and the BA, Geocentricity and Heliocentricity and Alpha Centauri Centricity and Gamma Canes Venatici Centricity are all equally valid models, that cannot be disproven short of going outside the universe and getting a report back from there. The difference is: the Geos claim to have such a report!

Silas
2002-Apr-14, 08:19 PM
On 2002-04-14 04:56, Prince wrote:
Once again Silas we repeat:

Bertrand Russell, the greatest atheist philosopher this century, indeed the High Priest of Atheism, a man you revere, nay "deify" even . . .



The is a very insulting statement, and, in fact, untrue in every particular.




, HIMSELF said: "Whether the earth rotates once a day from West to East, as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from East to West as his predecessores held, THE OBSERVABLE PHENOMENA WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME!.


Yes. However, the jiggling of the stars under an earthquake is very different from the jiggling of the earth in an earthquake.

I can easily provide a set of coordinates in which you are actually inside-out. Your guts are out and open to the cosmos, and your skin in on the inside, next to a slender tube of air, next to a even narrower tube of space, toward the very infinitessimal center of which is a tiny cylinder of stars and galaxies.

The overall behavior is exactly the same as the behavior we ordinarily observe. Only the coordinates have changed.

Is there anyone who is seriously daft enough to suggest that this system of coordinates is "as good" as the standard system?

In future, please be good enough to refrain from telling me whom I admire; I think I know that quite a bit better than you do.

Silas

Silas
2002-Apr-14, 08:21 PM
On 2002-04-13 22:27, GrapesOfWrath wrote:


On 2002-04-13 17:55, Silas wrote:
However, for those of us who follow the common-sense theory of testing an hypothesis, I think that the geocentrist and geostationary fantasy is trivially exploded by simple observations:

What about this (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1010&forum=1&start=30) and that (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=1010&forum=1&start=27)? I don't think you've answered those.


You just gave links to two extant discussion threads here, not to any specific points within those threads. You'll have to be a bit more specific.

Silas

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Apr-15, 02:00 AM
On 2002-04-14 16:19, Silas wrote:
The overall behavior is exactly the same as the behavior we ordinarily observe. Only the coordinates have changed.

Is there anyone who is seriously daft enough to suggest that this system of coordinates is "as good" as the standard system?

You're missing the point. The interpretation of "as good" is very specific under general relativity. A fixed earth is "as good" as not.

Torsten
2002-Apr-15, 03:18 AM
This one's for Don:

I haven't posted here in a long while, but I noticed your reference to Bouw's great admission. I archived that comment of his. You may recall that he never posted into a thread at the old board. He always came in to the top of the board, then left again. I sometimes wonder whether it was him at all, because all the geocentrists used that style. The following is what he wrote, then a bunch of us commented on it, and I don't think he's ever posted again.

_______________________
Posted by Gerardus on October 06, 2001 at 10:36:13:

The equations derived from the geocentric view take the effects of hurricanes & earthquakes on the length of the day into account. The gravitational strain on the earth due to the
universe is non-trivial, but just as a fish doesn't get crushed by a
few miles of water above it, so we don't feel that strain. The net
effect of that strain is that the universe fights any attempt at
removing the earth from its central position.

Of course, one can also answer that by noting that the Scripture
does not forbid earthquakes or any vibrations or nutations of the
earth due to such causes as you note. But even so, if you want to
insist that the earth must remain absolutely stable, that can be
accommodated by theory.

Remember what Fourier discovered more than 100 years ago. Enough
cyclical arguments can explain any phenomenon. That is the
foundation of Fourier Series and why, from my perspective, superstitions
such as evolution and acentrism can persist or, from your prespective
I presume, why such nonsense as geocentricity and creationism can
persist. All perspectives can thus be accommodated or fit into any
theory, hence the modern view is acentric and I say the argument is
theological, not scientific.
_____________________________

DStahl
2002-Apr-15, 03:29 AM
Thanks, Torsten. I will copy this comment and archive it myself--I should have copied the whole thread, but I didn't.

Hope all is well with you!

Cheers,
--Don Stahl

informant
2002-Apr-15, 08:09 AM
That is the
foundation of Fourier Series and why, from my perspective, superstitions
such as evolution and acentrism can persist or, from your prespective
I presume, why such nonsense as geocentricity and creationism can
persist.
All perspectives can thus be accommodated or fit into any
theory, hence (...) I say the argument is
theological, not scientific.

Well, I don't agree with this.
There is a difference between common sense (the simplest theory which accounts for the greatest amount of facts), and superstition.
It's the difference between believing in something because it's reasonable, and there is evidence to support it, and believing in something "just because".

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: informant on 2002-04-15 04:15 ]</font>

GrapesOfWrath
2002-May-02, 09:57 AM
On 2002-04-15 04:09, informant wrote:
There is a difference between common sense (the simplest theory which accounts for the greatest amount of facts), and superstition.
It's the difference between believing in something because it's reasonable, and there is evidence to support it, and believing in something "just because".

But, what if what you believe in "just because" also happens to agree with the evidence, to a great degree? Isn't that the essence of what has come to be known as a paradigm? A worldview where you try to shoehorn in each advancing datum, even if it doesn't quite fit, until the strain doesn't allow the overall structure to maintain integrity.

The breaking point is different for different individuals--some people come to science and forsake all religious ideas. Others come to science and see their religious beliefs even magnified.

In this particular case, respected physicists have pointed out that any reference frame is equivalent to any other, including one where the Earth is not rotating. That has been seized upon as a validation of previously held belief. Rejecting the premise would be rejecting the science, in my opinion.

2002-May-02, 12:17 PM
<a name="20020502.4:10"> page 20020502.4:10 aka archive$
On 2002-04-14 23:29, DStahl wrote: To: http://www.dailyemerald.com
Thanks, Torsten. I will copy this comment and archive it myself--I should have copied the whole thread, but I didn't.
--------------
4:12 A.M. { um? may I point out }
that the link to the said archive'S
NOT included.. {oh my}
now back to the "TRAIL"
http://www.dailyemerald.com/vnews/display.v/ARC?submit=search
http://www.pacificu.edu/studentlife/briefs.php

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-05-02 08:25 ]</font>