Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

Again, one needn’t even be so esoteric. The final nail in the coffin of ancient geocentrism was the unequivocal detection of stellar parallax in the 1800’s — the small shift in the apparent position of nearby stars due to the changing position of Earth around the Sun. Absence of parallax was a key argument against heliocentrism in Greek times. Geocentrists must devise a non-uniform spinning universe where nearby stars inexplicably shift their positions in different amounts proportional to their distance from us, in a manner to exactly mimic that which we would expect from a heliocentric model. Few are willing to postulate such a deceptive universal design. And not just tangential motion, but also the radial shifts of nearby stars are detected through their spectral Doppler lines. Claiming that it’s just “relative motion” doesn’t work, since it’s different for each star and systematic in its effects.

Maybe heliocentrism operates in a manner to exactly mimic the geocentric system. A revolving, precessing universe really sounds less complicated than a universe that popped out of nothing and exploded into existence.

Also, your radial motion of stars is not directly observable, only deduced from redshift which is assumed to be an expansion of space. Interstingly, since we cannot directly see it, this means space appears to be expanding from our vantage point.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Steve Andersen:

Gravity is a fundamental force
It no more has an explanation than mass does

It is an intrinsic property of matter
…
Acceleration
…
Objects don’t want to do anything…they’re objects
…
Gravity
…
Unexplained doesn’t mean unexplainable
…
Just because the mechanism isn’t fully explained doesn’t mean that empirical descriptions of the observed effects are somehow wrong.
…
Yes we know there is a disconnect between relativity and quantum mechanics…nothing new there
…
Graivtons have been postulated but not proven
Relativity doesn’t require a particle to work
…
what ever the expaliantion there would be no effect on our empirical understanding of the phenomenon
the sky is still blue whether or not we understand the nature of light
…
They’re working on that

BUT

The nature and cause of gravity that doesn’t change it observed effects
Two bodies will rotate around their center of mass regardless of why

Still, no explanation. That was my point.

I am not being critical of science. My point was to not assume science knows too much absolutely (actually science knows nothing absolutely).

Also, in corpuscular gravitational theories, gravity is not an intrinsic property of matter; though the math can reduce to the same equations and invlove matter. These theories are being taken seriously, and further bolster my point that we really do not understands as much as we would like to think we do.

The idea that gravity is an intrinsic property of matter is really related to Newtonian mysticism, not science. Neither Newtoinian nor relativistic relations between mass and gravity do more than provide a mathematical means to describe the observed effects which we call gravity. To say that gravity is an intrinsic property of matter is completely unproven.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[wanerious]

trth_skr:

Maybe heliocentrism operates in a manner to exactly mimic the geocentric system.

That doesn’t make any sense. Stellar parallax is a prediction of a heliocentric theory, not a geocentric one. It is, in fact, exactly what one does not expect to see if geocentrism were an accurate model.

A revolving, precessing universe really sounds less complicated than a universe that popped out of nothing and exploded into existence.

What does that have to do with stellar parallax? And, following up anyway, a universe following a relatively small set of observable principles sounds less complicated and more beautiful than one with so many ad-hoc, arbitrary motions that are indescribable by physical processes.

Also, your radial motion of stars is not directly observable, only deduced from redshift which is assumed to be an expansion of space.

No. I tried to explain this before. Parallax is observed in the Doppler shift of stellar absorption lines, implying a real relative motion through space — blueshifts for 6 months of the year as, due to our motion around the sun, we approach the star, and redshifts for the other 6 months. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmological redshift, which is completely different in its physical origin and perceptible only for objects millions of parsecs away. Doppler shifts are certainly a form of direct observation.

Interstingly, since we cannot directly see it, this means space appears to be expanding from our vantage point.

I don’t know what this means. What can’t we directly see?

 

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

That doesn’t make any sense. Stellar parallax is a prediction of a heliocentric theory, not a geocentric one. It is, in fact, exactly what one does not expect to see if geocentrism were an accurate model.

This is not true. It is true that early astronomers thought that parallax would only be seen from a heliocentric system, but they were considering a Ptolemaic system, which does not have precessions to explain parallax.

wanerious:

What does that have to do with stellar parallax? And, following up anyway, a universe following a relatively small set of observable principles sounds less complicated and more beautiful than one with so many ad-hoc, arbitrary motions that are indescribable by physical processes…

The universe is what it is. The geocentric models I described are realtively simple and beautiful.

wanerious:

No. I tried to explain this before. Parallax is observed in the Doppler shift of stellar absorption lines, implying a real relative motion through space — blueshifts for 6 months of the year as, due to our motion around the sun, we approach the star, and redshifts for the other 6 months. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the cosmological redshift, which is completely different in its physical origin and perceptible only for objects millions of parsecs away. Doppler shifts are certainly a form of direct observation.

I wasn’t clear on what you are talking about. The precessional movement, which causes the sun and stars to move towards and away from the earth will have the same relative effect.

wanerious:

I don’t know what this means. What can’t we directly see?

I was referring to the hypothesis of a general expansion of the universe either radially outwards or the 3-D ballon surface analogy. Redshift is the main proof for this hypothesis. Redshift is then assumed to be due to expansion of space. If redshift is found to be wrongly interpreted (as held by Arp and others), then the expansion comes into question.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[wanerious]

trth_skr:

This is not true. It is true that early astronomers thought that parallax would only be seen from a heliocentric system, but they were considering a Ptolemaic system, which does not have precessions to explain parallax.

What precessions? You mean each object in the sky has its own rate of precession (a small circle of movement around nothing) meant to exactly mimic the behavior we’d expect for the geocentric model? What is the physical model for these precessions? How does each star know how far away from us it is, so that it precesses just the right amount?

The universe is what it is. The geocentric models I described are realtively simple and beautiful.

As opposed to the geocentric model, they are capricious, arbitrary, and needlessly complicated. It both defies known laws of physics and requires new ones to explain the observations.

I wasn’t clear on what you are talking about. The precessional movement, which causes the sun and stars to move towards and away from the earth will have the same relative effect.

You realize that this precession needs to be different for each object. That it is really more complicated than a precession — it must necessarily be an orbital motion around nothing to explain both the apparent shift in position as well as doppler shifts.

I was referring to the hypothesis of a general expansion of the universe either radially outwards or the 3-D ballon surface analogy. Redshift is the main proof for this hypothesis. Redshift is then assumed to be due to expansion of space. If redshift is found to be wrongly interpreted (as held by Arp and others), then the expansion comes into question.

This has nothing to do with parallax, but it is extremely unlikely that Arp is correct. Just considering the overwhelming statistics of magnitude/redshift diagrams is powerful evidence, not to mention the fact that we see objects at similar stages of early evolution at similar cosmological redshifts. There is much, much more.

 

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

What precessions? You mean each object in the sky has its own rate of precession (a small circle of movement around nothing) meant to exactly mimic the behavior we’d expect for the geocentric model? What is the physical model for these precessions? How does each star know how far away from us it is, so that it precesses just the right amount?
…
You realize that this precession needs to be different for each object. That it is really more complicated than a precession — it must necessarily be an orbital motion around nothing to explain both the apparent shift in position as well as doppler shifts.
…
.

There may be multiple precessions, but not for each individual object. The magnitude of the observed effect of parallax is the same in the geocentric system as in the heliocentric- it is a function of distance (actually distance ratios).

Have you ever seen a Leica camera or similar rangefinder focusing camera? It uses parallax to focus the camera. The parallax is related to a ratio of the distance from the lens to rangfefinder to the distance from the rangefinder (or lens) to the focussed object. The analogous effect occurs in stellar parallax, whether for the geocentric or heliocentric system. Whether the relative motion between the earth and sun (lens to rangefinder) occurs due to a precession or an orbit is irrelevant. The distances are the same. Also any observed Doppler effect will occur in the same manner. The distance from the earth to star (rangefinder or lens to focussed object) is also the same.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Steve_Andersen]

trth_skr:

Still, no explanation. That was my point.

Yeah I know that was your point
My point was that it doesn’t matter…the observed effect is the same regardless of explanation

If I push my coffee cup off my desk it will hit the floor
I don’t need to know the mechanics of it to make that prediction

From the cup’s pint of view does it look like the floor is coming up to it? Sure.

But a simple experiment around that would be to simultaneously drop multiple cups at different points. While you could then go through mathematical gyrations to describe the motion of all the cups relative to one it would be burdensomely complex and would still not have a physical model to explain it.

trth_skr:

I am not being critical of science. My point was to not assume science knows too much absolutely (actually science knows nothing absolutely)…

Of course, But when a theory matches the preponderance of the evidence (as relativity does) and makes predictions that are independently verified (as relativity does) then our degree of certainty, while not absolute, is very high

We have an incredibly accurate empirical understanding of gravity. So much so that we can send deep space probes out with gravity boost on voyages that last years and are billions of miles long. These probes arrive where they are supposed to with an error that is negligible.

 

[trth_skr]

Steve Andersen:

Yeah I know that was your point
My point was that it doesn’t matter…the observed effect is the same regardless of explanation

If I push my coffee cup off my desk it will hit the floor
I don’t need to know the mechanics of it to make that prediction

From the cup’s pint of view does it look like the floor is coming up to it? Sure.

But a simple experiment around that would be to simultaneously drop multiple cups at different points. While you could then go through mathematical gyrations to describe the motion of all the cups relative to one it would be burdensomely complex and would still not have a physical model to explain it.

That experiment works fine around coffee cups, but not the universe. Until we can step out of the universe and look in, we cannot do that experiment.

And the explanation does matter. It shows that we have not grasped the most basic of issues- what is the nature of the force to which motion of the heavens is usually ascribed?

Form a philosophical perspective (where most of cosmology resides), this basically means we do not not know a heck of a lot. We see relative motion. Either geoncetrism, heliocntrism, or some form of acentrism could describe it.

The only one with approval of the Holy Spirit that I know of is geocentrism.
Steve Andersen:

Of course, But when a theory matches the preponderance of the evidence (as relativity does) and makes predictions that are independently verified (as relativity does) then our degree of certainty, while not absolute, is very high.

We can make many predictions accurately. It does not matter whether the universe is geocentric heliocentric or other for most of these predicitons.
Steve Andersen:

We have an incredibly accurate empirical understanding of gravity. So much so that we can send deep space probes out with gravity boost on voyages that last years and are billions of miles long. These probes arrive where they are supposed to with an error that is negligible.

Again, I am not disputing that we have math that works to some degree, especially on or near earth.

The anamolous acceleration of the Pioneer probes makes us wonder about extra solar system predictions.

And again, it does not matter whether the universe is geocentric or heliocentric (or acentric). Since we are talking relative motion, the probes will still go where we want them to. Often when launching earth orbit sattelites, scientists use the geocentric math, since it is more convenient. This shows we are talking about relative motions, and the math works.

Again, the only system with approval of the Holy Spirit that I know of is geocentrism.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[wanerious]

trth_skr:

There may be multiple precessions, but not for each individual object. The magnitude of the observed effect of parallax is the same in the geocentric system as in the heliocentric- it is a function of distance (actually distance ratios).

Have you ever seen a Leica camera or similar rangefinder focusing camera? It uses parallax to focus the camera. The parallax is related to a ratio of the distance from the lens to rangfefinder to the distance from the rangefinder (or lens) to the focussed object. The analogous effect occurs in stellar parallax, whether for the geocentric or heliocentric system. Whether the relative motion between the earth and sun (lens to rangefinder) occurs due to a precession or an orbit is irrelevant. The distances are the same. Also any observed Doppler effect will occur in the same manner. The distance from the earth to star (rangefinder or lens to focussed object) is also the same.

I stlll think we’re talking past each other. The parallax and doppler shifts occur because the Earth is at a different position in January, say, than in July. So, yes, each object has a different apparent shift inversely proportional to its distance from us. Were we stationary, they each need to undergo small revolutionary motions, each different, in order to mimic this effect. And there is no physical model to account for them. Now, if you wish to postulate that every heavenly object is characterized by a circular motion around nothing, the magnitude of which decreases with distance from us in just such a way as to mimic a heliocentric motion, then of course I can’t prove you wrong, just as I can’t really prove that there are no winged elephants, or that the universe wasn’t created last Tuesday with all of our memories and experiences artificially generated. But it is certainly a notion I will spend no further time with.

 

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

I stlll think we’re talking past each other. The parallax and doppler shifts occur because the Earth is at a different position in January, say, than in July. So, yes, each object has a different apparent shift inversely proportional to its distance from us. Were we stationary, they each need to undergo small revolutionary motions, each different, in order to mimic this effect. And there is no physical model to account for them. Now, if you wish to postulate that every heavenly object is characterized by a circular motion around nothing, the magnitude of which decreases with distance from us in just such a way as to mimic a heliocentric motion, then of course I can’t prove you wrong, just as I can’t really prove that there are no winged elephants, or that the universe wasn’t created last Tuesday with all of our memories and experiences artificially generated. But it is certainly a notion I will spend no further time with.

Look again at this post and diagrams:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=693469&postcount=67

In the geocentric case it is not the earth that is in a different position at different times of the year, it is the sun and stars. This is due to a single annual precession. The perceived effect changes with distance, just like the heliocentric case. Again, it is relative motion, and the effect is simple and analogous to the alternate mathematical formulation (heliocentrism), i.e., the equivalent one not having the Holy Spirit´s assent.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JimG]

trth_skr:

Again, the only system with approval of the Holy Spirit that I know of is geocentrism.

The Holy Spirit is a geocentrist. We are all in big trouble.