Geocentrism - flogging a pink unicorn

[PhilVaz]

Mark << Are you trying to punish Alec? >>

No, he doesn’t mind. He said he will eventually put this up on his site as well. In case you forgot, his site is www.EvolutionPages.com and he deals with the age of the earth/universe, evolution, and now maybe an article on geocentrism.

I simply added a few pretty pictures, additional text and links. And I hope to see a mention to Alec’s article in the Sungenis’ book Galileo Was Wrong at least in a footnote. Now continue on with your rebuttal. The universe rotating and all that.

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

hecd2:

…
Similarly, it is not dynamically correct to say, as you must if you hold that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe in an absolute space, that the impact of a large meteorite on the earth causes an absolute acceleration of the entire universe…

Not true.

If a meteor hit the eath, the earth would absorb the energy by vibrating, breaking the crust , etc.

The earth may be the unmovinmg center of the universe because the universe stabilises it, not because there is a reference frame attached to it. The reference frame is a mathematical abstraction. There most likely is a physical explanation as to why the earth is at center.

If a meteor hit the earth, and this did not significantly change the balance of mass in the universe, the universe could still stabilize its center (i.e., the earth).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…

A Sungenis specific error

A particular Sungenis nonsense is reference to the ‘gyroscopic rotation of the universe stabilising the earth at its centre of mass’. First of all, this confuses solid body dynamics with many-body kinematics. Secondly if he really believed in the equivalence of the rotating and static star field reference systems he would acknowledge that the ‘stabilising forces’ would have to exist in both co-ordinate systems – but where in the reference frame at rest with respect to the distant stars are we to find forces that prevent the earth from wandering off through the universe due to the influence of locally acting forces such as gravitational attraction to large masses. …

I do not agree. The reason(s) something occurs in one reference frame may be different than the analogous phenomenon in another; though they will be consistent.

For instance, the reason a geosynchronous satellite stays in orbit in a revolving earth reference frame has to do with trade-offs in centripetal acceleration and earth’s gravity (with some influence from the stars), while in a fixed earth case, the geosynchronous satellite appears to remain motionless due to cancelling gravitational fields between rotating cosmic masses and the earth’s gravity. In the revolving earth reference frame, things come closer to the Nerwtonian approximation, and the effect of the rest of the universe appears less (though inertia still exists).

Same observation, different reference frames, different explanations.

The gyroscopic stabilisation can be viewed as an explanation as to why the earth remains stable in a rotating universe. It can also lead to new avenues of understanding such a universe.

Similarly if we chose the fixed sun reference frame, we may want an explanation as to why the earth goes around the sun and revolves on its axis. The observations from earth would be the same, but the explanations for the observations would be different. In both cases some manifestation of gravito-magnetic forces would be used to explain the motions by GR.

Explanations at the level of gyroscopic stabilisation are not required by GR, but clearly useful to understand the physics of the system in question.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[abcdefg]

In Newtonian mechanics, geocentrism cannot be true for many physical reasons

Newtonian mechanisc only apply to medium sized objects moving at medium speed. doesn’t apply to universe or atoms. all the article is using the wrong method to try to achieve a suspicious goal

 

[wildleafblower]

PhilVaz:

Mark << Are you trying to punish Alec? >>

No, he doesn’t mind. He said he will eventually put this up on his site as well. In case you forgot, his site is www.EvolutionPages.com and he deals with the age of the earth/universe, evolution, and now maybe an article on geocentrism.

I simply added a few pretty pictures, additional text and links. And I hope to see a mention to Alec’s article in the Sungenis’ book Galileo Was Wrong at least in a footnote. Now continue on with your rebuttal. The universe rotating and all that.

Phil P

Hey, you have a superb website! It’s wonderful. You have Alec’s article on your website too. Congradulations you two! Great job.

bringyou.to/apologetics/p92.htm

bringyou.to/apologetics/philos.htm