Geocentric Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Omyo12
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mchale said:
3, Even at 990 billion miles, it is still too far away to avoid the issue of it rotating around the earth at many times the speed of light.

Bill
Click to expand...
By the way, we need to remember that there are some solutions to the field equations that involve rotation of the fluid - in particular the Bianchi IX and Goedel solutions. GR only prohibits motion greater than c relative to the metric - it does not prohibit metric expansion or rotation at speeds greater than c - Luke is right about that. However, the Bianchi and Goedel solutions are unphysical - they do not describe a universe as we see it. In particular Bianchi models have closed timelike curves (time travel anyone?) and both models are inhomogeneous and stationary. Models that describe the universe as we observe it, eg the FRLW solution, are non-rotating.

Alec
 
buffalo said:
Many are Art by NASA.
Click to expand...
They may have artistic qualities, but they are not art. They might enhance images to better examine particular aspects of what they are looking at, but they are not falsified.

–
Bill
 
mchale said:
They may have artistic qualities, but they are not art. They might enhance images to better examine particular aspects of what they are looking at, but they are not falsified.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
**Coloring the Universe: Why Reality is a Gray Area in Astronomy **

**Photoshop universe
**The quintessential Hubble photograph is a 1995 image of the popular Eagle Nebula, also known as M16 or the Pillars of Creation. The soaring structures had one of their red emissions converted to green – by the astronomers who took the picture – in order to highlight scientific detail. In “reality,” no green was detected coming from the Pillars.
Interestingly, all Hubble images are created with black-and-white cameras. Ones and zeros are sent to Earth. Color is dropped in later with the popular Photoshop program.
Brecher and most other astronomers agree that what is done with Hubble pictures is not deceptive; the process is rooted in science, a way of extracting and highlighting information. However, the professor worries that the media do not always communicate when and how images are colorized.
Furthermore, he calls the process highly subjective.
“The color of objects that astronomers release are not really representative of a thing one might imagine exists, which is the objective color of a star or a galaxy,” Brecher said in an interview last month during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Albuquerque, where he made his case before his peers.
“Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon,” he said. “Color is in the eye of the beholder.”
As an example, Brecher asks what color the Moon is. The instinctive answer is “white.” Some might say yellow. And in certain sky conditions, it can look orange.
Brecher calls this question absurd, too, because it does not include the context necessary to allow an accurate answer. The dusty coating on the Moon’s surface resembles finely ground charcoal. “If you bring average lunar material to Earth and view it in normal terrestrial lighting, it would look very dark.” The color of the Moon and the light coming from it are two very different things.
“It is time for astronomers and the press alike to carefully distinguish between when discussing astronomy,” Brecher said.
 
mchale said:
Actually the calculations are relatively straight forward geometry and trigonometry. Basically since we know how far the Sun is away from us (93 million miles give or take) if we assume the Sun is the center of the Solar System, then by measuring very small changes in the position of the nearer stars (such as alpha centauri) relative to the position of stars which appear to be much further away, you can calculate out the distance.

Think about it in these terms… lets say you were asked to calculate the height of an isoceles triangle with a base of 186 million miles across and legs whose angle relative to the base was some really small number (say 1/400th of a degree). It might bring back nightmares from Trig class, but I think you probably knew how to do it when you were in High School.

As for the difference the Earth being immobile makes? I am not sure, I think it probably depends on which geocentric model he is using (Do the stars orbit the Sun which then orbits the Earth? Or do the Stars orbit the Earth directly).

–
Bill
Click to expand...
OK, I do have a foggy memory of trig, but how is the distance to the sun measured…?
 
buffalo said:
**Coloring the Universe: Why Reality is a Gray Area in Astronomy **

**Photoshop universe
**The quintessential Hubble photograph is a 1995 image of the popular Eagle Nebula, also known as M16 or the Pillars of Creation. The soaring structures had one of their red emissions converted to green – by the astronomers who took the picture – in order to highlight scientific detail. In “reality,” no green was detected coming from the Pillars.
Interestingly, all Hubble images are created with black-and-white cameras. Ones and zeros are sent to Earth. Color is dropped in later with the popular Photoshop program.
Brecher and most other astronomers agree that what is done with Hubble pictures is not deceptive; the process is rooted in science, a way of extracting and highlighting information. However, the professor worries that the media do not always communicate when and how images are colorized.
Furthermore, he calls the process highly subjective.
“The color of objects that astronomers release are not really representative of a thing one might imagine exists, which is the objective color of a star or a galaxy,” Brecher said in an interview last month during a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Albuquerque, where he made his case before his peers.
“Color is a very, very subjective phenomenon,” he said. “Color is in the eye of the beholder.”
As an example, Brecher asks what color the Moon is. The instinctive answer is “white.” Some might say yellow. And in certain sky conditions, it can look orange.
Brecher calls this question absurd, too, because it does not include the context necessary to allow an accurate answer. The dusty coating on the Moon’s surface resembles finely ground charcoal. “If you bring average lunar material to Earth and view it in normal terrestrial lighting, it would look very dark.” The color of the Moon and the light coming from it are two very different things.
“It is time for astronomers and the press alike to carefully distinguish between when discussing astronomy,” Brecher said.

I think it should be noted that even your basic digital point and shoot camera is a black and white camera. There is a color filter in front of each pixel of the camera that determines what color light will reach that pixel. Then when the image is produced, 4 different pixels are combined to produce the color image.

Likewise, the Hubble images do contain information on the wavelengths of light that are in the image, but they tend to represent particular emission spectra. I don’t know specifically how the Hubble crew does it, but my guess is that they combine multiple images taken with different filters and then assign colors to the specific wavelengths.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
 
mchale said:
I think it should be noted that even your basic digital point and shoot camera is a black and white camera. There is a color filter in front of each pixel of the camera that determines what color light will reach that pixel. Then when the image is produced, 4 different pixels are combined to produce the color image.

Likewise, the Hubble images do contain information on the wavelengths of light that are in the image, but they tend to represent particular emission spectra. I don’t know specifically how the Hubble crew does it, but my guess is that they combine multiple images taken with different filters and then assign colors to the specific wavelengths.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
How they do it
 
hecd2 said:
By the way, we need to remember that there are some solutions to the field equations that involve rotation of the fluid - in particular the Bianchi IX and Goedel solutions. GR only prohibits motion greater than c relative to the metric - it does not prohibit metric expansion or rotation at speeds greater than c - Luke is right about that. However, the Bianchi and Goedel solutions are unphysical - they do not describe a universe as we see it. In particular Bianchi models have closed timelike curves (time travel anyone?) and both models are inhomogeneous and stationary. Models that describe the universe as we observe it, eg the FRLW solution, are non-rotating.

Alec
Click to expand...
I recognize that there are solutions to relativity that would allow objects to travel faster than the speed of light around us, but wouldn’t there be some way of detecting it? I mean in this specific case, the fluid is rotating but the Earth is standing still… I would think we would expect to see some sort of distortion in local space time for that to be the case.

–
Bill
 
pickguard1 said:
OK, I do have a foggy memory of trig, but how is the distance to the sun measured…?
Click to expand...
I just read a thing that said one way is to use another planet - say Venus, and use radio waves to determine its distance from earth at its greatest elongation, then use trig with the earth-venus-sun angle and that distance to get the distance to the sun - but that calculation uses radio waves which travel at the speed of light…now how is THAT calculated?

The other sites I have seen mention using the moon and its distance (still don’t know how that’s calulated) - since the moon and the sun are apparently the same size as we see them in the sky, the proportion of their distances would be the same - if I understand it correctly.

Ah…maybe I’m just in way too far over my head on this one, since I only got a “C” in trig, and that was 13 years ago…😃
 
I also never took physics or studied any of Einstein’s or Newton’s theories in any classes, let alone in any mathematical capacity…that would probably help…I’ll just observe and shrug. 😊
 
mchale said:
I recognize that there are solutions to relativity that would allow objects to travel faster than the speed of light around us, but wouldn’t there be some way of detecting it? I mean in this specific case, the fluid is rotating but the Earth is standing still… I would think we would expect to see some sort of distortion in local space time for that to be the case.

–
Bill
Click to expand...
I don’t think there would be direct ways of detecting it. There would be local distortions of space time because the fluid is rotating and the earth is standing still, but they would be similar (or identical) to the distortions we get in space time if the fluid is rotating and the earth is stationary - ie frame-dragging in the vicinity of the earth: a very tiny effect - detected within errors by Ciufolini and Pavlis with LAGEOS.

However, in terms of the actual universe, this is all moot, as the Bianchi IX and Goedel models yield unphysical results, so we reject them for models that do yield physical results such as the FRLW metric and its derivatives, in which the fluid is static on a non-rotating manifold.

I think that it’s important not to poo-poo the idea of a rotating universe on the grounds of violation of speed of light limits because I don’t think that washes. There are many other bases on which to refute it.

Alec
 
hecd2 said:
I don’t think there would be direct ways of detecting it. There would be local distortions of space time because the fluid is rotating and the earth is standing still, but they would be similar (or identical) to the distortions we get in space time if the fluid is rotating and the earth is stationary - ie frame-dragging in the vicinity of the earth: a very tiny effect - detected within errors by Ciufolini and Pavlis with LAGEOS.

However, in terms of the actual universe, this is all moot, as the Bianchi IX and Goedel models yield unphysical results, so we reject them for models that do yield physical results such as the FRLW metric and its derivatives, in which the fluid is static on a non-rotating manifold.

I think that it’s important not to poo-poo the idea of a rotating universe on the grounds of violation of speed of light limits because I don’t think that washes. There are many other bases on which to refute it.

Alec
Click to expand...
Ok, got you.

Oh, here is a thought… how do geocentrists explain geostationary satellites?

–
Bill
 
buffalo said:
How they do it
Click to expand...
And your point is?

Are you suggesting that NASA’s and other astronomers’ use of enhanced colour and false colour is deceptive and leads to false scientific conclusions? (These processes are used throughout science by the way to visualise everything from flow round an aerofoil to population density in the USA.) Think before you reply, because if you say “yes” then I will ask you to provide a specific example where colourisation of Hubble images led directly to false scientific conclusions (or fraudulent promotion of false conclusions).

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top