Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

Please read the thread I linked.

i have.

trth_skr:

My only goal in this thread is to prove that Gary cannot disprove Geocentrism just because he can explain the motion of geosynchronous satellites with Newtonian mechancs in a rotating earth frame. I.e., having a model which works in a rotating earth frame does not exclude an analogous model when the earth is fixed, and using the strong principle of general relativity.In fact it has to work, or general reltivity does not. This is what I am trying to say.

here’s what i don’t get: if you could prove that the earth was objectively rotating (or at rest, for that matter), wouldn’t that necessarily demonstrate the existence of an absolute frame of reference? and thus that einstein was wrong?

which brings us back to philosophy, since einstein simply rejected the aether out of hand as something his fierce positivism stipulated as superfluous and thus non-existent. that is, he merely assumed the non-existence of absolute space - he didn’t demonstrate it…

trth_skr:

As far as philosophy, it dominates cosmiology.

indeed, most of physics.

trth_skr:

There is no hard, scientific proof that the earth moves.

how do you think the sagnac effect fits in?

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

i have.

here’s what i don’t get: if you could prove that the earth was objectively rotating (or at rest, for that matter), wouldn’t that necessarily demonstrate the existence of an absolute frame of reference? and thus that einstein was wrong?

which brings us back to philosophy, since einstein simply rejected the aether out of hand as something his fierce positivism stipulated as superfluous and thus non-existent. that is, he merely assumed the non-existence of absolute space - he didn’t demonstrate it…

indeed, most of physics.

how do you think the sagnac effect fits in?

No one has yet demonstrated that the earth is rotating. This is what Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Pierce, etc. were all about. The failure of these experiments to prove earth movement helped Einstein decide to jettison aether.

This does not mean relativity does not work. Newtonian mechanics does not explain gravity, yet it works.

If you read my post than you should see that I said (in summary):

Either,

1. The motion of geosynchronous satellites does NOT disprove Geocentrism,

OR

1. The motion of geosynchronous satellites disproves Geocentrism AND Einstein’s Theory of Relativity

i.e., if it does disprove Geocentrism (which I contend it does not)then it must also disprove general relativity. More precisely, in order to use it to disprove Geocentrism, you must first demonstrate it disproves general relativity (which provides explanations for the forces in the fixed earth case), then maybe you can use it to disprove Geocentrism. I also contend that if general relativity is disproven, we are back to raw observations, which support Geocentrism or heliocentrism or acentrism.

As far as Sagnac, this is a detection of rotation. It does not distuinguish between earth and universe rotation.

 

[john_doran]

trth_skr:

As far as Sagnac, this is a detection of rotation. It does not distuinguish between earth and universe rotation.

not exactly: given a measuring device of sufficient sensitivity, you could tell if the earth was rotating or not.

 

[Benedictus]

I can’t believe there are people who actually deny that the Earth rotates… This is embarrassing.

Anyone ever hear of a Foucault pendulum?

Why does the heading indicator in an aircraft drift 15 degrees per hour? Is it because the Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour?

 

[JimG]

In Kansas, we’re still having arguments about whether evolutionary should be taught in schools. No way am I going to bring up geocentrism!

 

[trth_skr]

john doran:

not exactly: given a measuring device of sufficient sensitivity, you could tell if the earth was rotating or not.

Actually, no. Sagnac, Michelson-Morley, Michelson-Gale-Pearce, etc. were all experiments to detect motion through the aether. Amazingly only the ones designed to detect rotation got the expected result. The ones designed to measure translation did not.

All of these experiments can detect rotation, but cannot distinguish between mtion of the earth through aether or aether past the earth. They measure a relative mtion through aether.

 

[JimG]

Relativity theory does not mean that every frame of reference is entirely equal to every other. If I travel to the nearest star at .99c and return to Earth at .99c, I will experience a time dilation effect, and end up much younger than my twin who stayed on earth.

One would think that the twin could say, “No, that was just your perspective. It was really you who remained stationary while I receded from you at .99c and then returned, along with the Earth.”

But he would be wrong. There are real physical effects involved. My real motion is different from his apparent motion. The two frames of reference are not equal because I was not traveling in constant uniform motion. There was acceleration and deceleration (which I could feel and he couldn’t) There was turning around and coming back (a non-uniform motion which I could feel as acceleration / deceleration and he couldn’t.)

When we both get back together, I’ll be young and he’ll be old. The two frames of reference are not equal.

 

[trth_skr]

JimG:

Relativity theory does not mean that every frame of reference is entirely equal to every other. If I travel to the nearest star at .99c and return to Earth at .99c, I will experience a time dilation effect, and end up much younger than my twin who stayed on earth.

One would think that the twin could say, “No, that was just your perspective. It was really you who remained stationary while I receded from you at .99c and then returned, along with the Earth.”

But he would be wrong. There are real physical effects involved. My real motion is different from his apparent motion. The two frames of reference are not equal because I was not traveling in constant uniform motion. There was acceleration and deceleration (which I could feel and he couldn’t) There was turning around and coming back (a non-uniform motion which I could feel as acceleration / deceleration and he couldn’t.)

When we both get back together, I’ll be young and he’ll be old. The two frames of reference are not equal.

True. First, I think this is special relativity. Second, the reference frame was stated, one twin travelled at 0.99c, the other stayed back at almost 0c. If the earth were to travel away at 0.99c from the twin in a rocket ship at 0c, then the roles could be reversed. Logically, this makes no sense. Also, this is almost a paradox, and a lot different situation then fixing a center in the universe and applying Mach’s principle. Special relativity only applies in limited circumstances.

If you read the posts, you will see examples from real relativists who explained how the physics really work. If you use a fixed earth reference frame, then the forces at the earth have to be accounted for by the rotating cosmic masses. This is not just a perceived effect. All the universe interacts. That interaction for a given referene frame needs to be consistent with every other interaction in the universe. This is basically Mach’s principle, which is embedded in Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

Effectively, in general relativity this means the universe has no preferred reference frame (this is basically acentrism). If it turned out that there actually were a real reference frame in the universe, and it happened to be a fixed earth (i.e., Geocentrism were true), then the forces that we experience and account for being due to translation and rotation of the earth, must actually be coming from the distant rotating cosmic masses.

The examples used were created by relativists who know the physics and consequences of them. They discuss fixed reference frames and rotating cosmic masses.

The idea is there is the rotating earth reference frame with its explanation. When the earth is fixed, co-equivalence requires that we can reformulate from this reference, and thus the rotating cosmic masses provide the analogous forces. Here Einstein explains it:

Einstein cites Hans Thirring in his 1914 paper. He writes:

"Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth.

Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

Hans Thirring created a geocentric model and proved that the forces we experience at earth and attribute to earth rotation / translation (i.e., inertial forces- Coriolis, centrifigal, etc.) are attributed to the rotating cosmic masses in the fixed earth case.

Hans Thirring concludes his paper with:

“…By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces.”

Other examples are used in the thread I linked. take a look.

 

[trth_skr]

Benedictus:

…Anyone ever hear of a Foucault pendulum?..

The Foucalt pendulum reacts top rotation. It does not distinguish between rotation of the earth and the universe. Einstein expalins it here:

Einstein wrote to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913:

“If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by the 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.”

Note it is a heavy shell of matter rotating around the sphere of stars, not the points in the interior that are rotating. The Foucalt pendulum is being dragged by the distant “rotating cosmic mass”.

This is basically what is being said by Thirring in the previous post. Also, see the thread I linked. There are other examples.

 

[PhilVaz]

benedictus << I can’t believe there are people who actually deny that the Earth rotates… >>

There are 4 people: Bob Sungenis, Trth_skr who I think his name is Mark who was banned earlier this year for being too “enthusiastic” about this geocentrism stuff, Gerardus Bouw, and Marshall Hall. That’s it.

The other 6 billion people, including every astronomer and physicist the past 300 years, have consigned themselves on this rotating planet around the sun without realizing all the supposed philosophical baggage that entails. Yeah and I hear the same thing about the philosophical baggage about an old earth and evolution

The Evolution of Bible-Science

We’ve already discussed all the disproofs of geocentrism in this thread. In my opinion, the “science” is just a window dressing, the “proof” of geocentrism, and a young earth, and creationism in general comes from a particular interpretation of the Bible. That is not science but religion, and treats the Bible as a modern science text which this document from John Paul II and this document from Benedict XVI says we should not do.

Phil P

 

[wanerious]

trth_skr:

As far as philosophy, it dominates cosmiology. There is no hard, scientific proof that the earth moves.

There is certainly evidence that the earth moves. It is difficult to interpret the large-scale anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background in any way other than our bulk motion towards the “Great Wall”, a supercluster of galaxies, at a rate of about 600 km/s. Thirring’s solutions to the field equations are interesting, though every cosmologist you quote above who is familiar with these solutions would still not favor a geocentric view due to the boundary conditions involved. Such great gravitational fields at these distances would have a great effect on the light emitted by distant quasars and galaxies.

Also, couldn’t one just place an instrument on the moon to record the rate of rotation of the celestial sphere as seen from there, and compare it to the rate of rotation of the celestial sphere as seen from the earth, and compare the two? Especially taking into account the rate at which the moon goes around the earth, this should show beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth spins.

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

benedictus
The Evolution of Bible-Science

…That is not science but religion, and treats the Bible as a modern science text which this document from John Paul II and this document from Benedict XVI says we should not do.

Phil P

Hi Phil:

Ratzinger approved the document you identify with him, but did not write it. Similarly with the PAS intorduction for JPII. I would give more credence to the Ratzinger document (in the sense that it may reflect some of Ratzinger’s views) than the PAS documnet (which was simply a courtesy intorduction to a conferecnce). I am going top study the Ratzinger document.

During hi coronation ceremony, Benedict XV! said:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

Robert Sungenis noted:

‘To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”’

You have a document tacitly approved by the Cardinal. The above quote is straight from the mind of the Pope.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< During hi coronation ceremony, Benedict XV! said:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.” >>

I agree, and so does the International Theological Commission here:

paragraph 69: In the Catholic perspective, neo-Darwinians who adduce random genetic variation and natural selection as evidence that the process of evolution is absolutely unguided are straying beyond what can be demonstrated by science. Divine causality can be active in a process that is both contingent and guided. Any evolutionary mechanism that is contingent can only be contingent because God made it so. An unguided evolutionary process – one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence – simply cannot exist because “the causality of God, Who is the first agent, extends to all being, not only as to constituent principles of species, but also as to the individualizing principles…It necessarily follows that all things, inasmuch as they participate in existence, must likewise be subject to divine providence” (Summa theologiae I, 22, 2).

And evolution (God-guided) is a fact according to this paragraph:

1. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Hi Phil: Ratzinger approved the document you identify with him, but did not write it. >>

Ratzinger didn’t write it maybe because he wanted his “best scientist-theologians” on the job. Here is who wrote it:

The preparation of this study was entrusted to a subcommission whose members included: Very Rev. J. Augustine Di Noia, O.P., Most Reverend Jean-Louis Bruguès, Msgr. Anton Strukelj, Rev. Tanios Bou Mansour, O.L.M., Rev. Adolpe Gesché, Most Reverend Willem Jacobus Eijk, Rev. Fadel Sidarouss, S.J., and Rev. Shun ichi Takayanagi, S.J.

And Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) approved it. I recently ordered from Amazon.com the Cardinal’s commentary on Genesis from the 1980s that Michael Behe likes to quote. We’ll see what that says too…

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

There is certainly evidence that the earth moves. It is difficult to interpret the large-scale anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background in any way other than our bulk motion towards the “Great Wall”, a supercluster of galaxies, at a rate of about 600 km/s.

I agree, there is evidence that can be interpreted as a moving earth. There is also a lot of evidence that can beinterpreted as earth at the center of the universe, that earth does not move, etc.
Most of the evidence that the earth moves (i.e., Foucalt’s pendulum) is actually just as validly interpreted as a rotating universe.

Interestingly, the CMB studies also supply evidence for an earth at the center. For instance, Max Tegmark, involved in al ot of CMB issues, says:

“This is our best guess as to what the cosmic microwave background looks like, from the paper described below. Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center…”

This is largely an observation. Next we add layers of theory (GR, Big Bang + expanding universe, redshift = recessional velocty, latest Hubble constant, etc., all of which are in question, and he goes on to say:

“…Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view…”

How do we know it continues on?

*"…This censorship is frustrating, since **if *we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe…"

This is faith, pure and simple. Faith in many theories layered together. If any of the fundamental theories falls apart, that whole statement vanishes.

“…Light from still further away would not yet have had time to reach us, but most inflation theories predict that space is infinite…”

First, we really do not know that the spehere is 13.3 billion light years away. This is based on the idea that redshift is proportional to recessional velocity for EM in a vacuum. This is unproven and Halton Arp and others have a lot of evidence calling it into question. If the redshift relation does not hod, then the statement about the earth moving away at 600 km/s also is implausible.Also, large gravitational fields can cause redshift. So where is the redshift we observe coming from?

I am not trying to make a mockery of the CMB work. It is extremely interesting. I am just pointing out that there are layers of questionable theories which need to be correct to be able to make the statements being made.

wanerious:

Thirring’s solutions to the field equations are interesting, though every cosmologist you quote above who is familiar with these solutions would still not favor a geocentric view due to the boundary conditions involved. Such great gravitational fields at these distances would have a great effect on the light emitted by distant quasars and galaxies.

The cosmologists would not favor the solution, first because of their philosophical views (i.e., acentrism), but possibly beacuse of perceived physical issues. Anyone that can accept the big bang theory should not find Geocentrism to be that odd!

wanerious:

Such great gravitational fields at these distances would have a great effect on the light emitted by distant quasars and galaxies.

Those great gravitational fields make the Geocentric perspective possihble. If in fact there is an aether based universe composed of Planck level particles (and possibly other components), who knows how this may change things. If the light travelled through the aether, there may be no gravitational lensing. On the other hand, extreme gravitational lensing has been proposed to explain many of the anomilies that have been seen. If this fantastic gravitational lensing is occuring, then perhaps it explains redshifts (see above, redshifts can be caused by gravitational fields), quasars with luminous bridges attached to galaxies, etc. Maybe this lensing is present and we really do not understand what we are seeing, and the theories wwe have created are as distorted as the gravitational lens invoked by the rotating cosmic masses! Considering that the nearest star is apparently > 4 light years, we really cannot verify many of our theories.

wanerious:

Also, couldn’t one just place an instrument on the moon to record the rate of rotation of the celestial sphere as seen from there, and compare it to the rate of rotation of the celestial sphere as seen from the earth, and compare the two? Especially taking into account the rate at which the moon goes around the earth, this should show beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth spins.

No, this is relative motion, and the observations will be consistent.It is clear that observations will not suffice (see the George Ellis quote above, 11:31AM, May 25th).

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

Ratzinger didn’t write it maybe because he wanted his “best scientist-theologians” on the job…
Phil P

No comment on this:

trth_skr:

During hi coronation ceremony, Benedict XV! said:

“We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed , each of us is loved, each of us is necessary.”

Robert Sungenis noted:

‘To help get the point across even better, the pope used a play on words. According to Fr. Brian Harrison who knows Italian and heard the pope speak, the words translated in English as “is willed” are the Italian words “é voluto.” The word in Italian for “evolution” is “evoluzione.” Hence, the intended pun was: we are not the product of “evoluzione” but the product of divine “é voluto.”’

You have a document tacitly approved by the Cardinal. The above quote is straight from the mind of the Pope.

 

[wanerious]

"Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center…"

Sure, because in the GR model of curved and expanding spacetime, every point can be considered to be the center.

“…Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view…”

How do we know it continues on?

Because the source of the CMB is well-known, and this atomic recombination occurred when the universe was 400,000 years old. To say that space continues is somewhat inaccurate, only that there are portions of the observable universe that are inaccessible to us via photons.

*"…This censorship is frustrating, since **if ***we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe…"

This is faith, pure and simple.

No, it is much more well-grounded than that. Your argument is from personal incredulity; that because you don’t understand it, it must be somehow diminished as an article of “faith”. This CMB “horizon” prevents us from observing details in the early universe with photons. There is great hope that, with an ability to observe primordial neutrinos or graviational waves, we can “look” at the early universe back to 10^-34 seconds after the initial expansion.

First, we really do not know that the spehere is 13.3 billion light years away. This is based on the idea that redshift is proportional to recessional velocity for EM in a vacuum. This is unproven and Halton Arp and others have a lot of evidence calling it into question.

No. The redshift is not proportional to any recessional velocity, as in the classical Doppler shift, but is proportional to the expansion of space itself. It is a completely different thing. What is this evidence from Arp? Trust me, there is no controversy among cosmologists.

If the redshift relation does not hod, then the statement about the earth moving away at 600 km/s also is implausible.

It is compelling indeed that the bulk motion obtained from CMB correlates with optical redshift surveys of nearby galaxies.

Also, large gravitational fields can cause redshift. So where is the redshift we observe coming from?

Gravitational redshift is also a completely different phenomenon, arising from an extremely high mass density. The gravitational effects necessary to “tire” light in this way from cosmological distances would also grossly affect the large-scale structure of the universe, and would be easily detectable. It’s a no-go.

I am just pointing out that there are layers of questionable theories which need to be correct to be able to make the statements being made.

The theories are less questionable than you imagine. It is possible that the implausibility of the theories could be due to your imperfect understanding of them rather than any inherent flaw in the sciences.

Anyone that can accept the big bang theory should not find Geocentrism to be that odd!

The Big Bang theory is beautiful, elegant, and theologically satisfying. Geocentrism is not to be taken seriously. It is the astronomical equivalent to the “These Bible stories don’t match! Christianity is foolish!” apologetics foisted on serious theologians.

Those great gravitational fields make the Geocentric perspective possihble. If in fact there is an aether based universe composed of Planck level particles (and possibly other components), who knows how this may change things…Considering that the nearest star is apparently > 4 light years, we really cannot verify many of our theories.

We can verify much more than you are aware. We can also not throw out assertions based upon misunderstandings. What is a “Planck-level particle”? As explained above, cosmological redshifts are certainly not gravitational. “Who knows how this may change things?” Astronomers do!

No, this is relative motion, and the observations will be consistent.It is clear that observations will not suffice (see the George Ellis quote above, 11:31AM, May 25th).

No, relative motion will do the trick. Ellis was not talking about what you think he was talking about. He was referring to possible solutions to the field equations, not making a statement supporting geocentrism. I believe you will not find in George Ellis an ally, unless you just want to quote-mine.

 

[trth_skr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
"Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center…"
wanereous:

Sure, because in the GR model of curved and expanding spacetime, every point can be considered to be the center.

No, actually he is simply decribing the geometry of the map as it came out. See this website:

space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/wmap.html

 

[trth_skr]

Quote:

“…Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view…”

How do we know it continues on?
wanereous:

Because the source of the CMB is well-known, and this atomic recombination occurred when the universe was 400,000 years old. To say that space continues is somewhat inaccurate, only that there are portions of the observable universe that are inaccessible to us via photons.

Quote:
*"…This censorship is frustrating, since **if *we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe…"

This is faith, pure and simple.
wanereous:

No, it is much more well-grounded than that. Your argument is from personal incredulity; that because you don’t understand it, it must be somehow diminished as an article of “faith”. This CMB “horizon” prevents us from observing details in the early universe with photons. There is great hope that, with an ability to observe primordial neutrinos or graviational waves, we can “look” at the early universe back to 10^-34 seconds after the initial expansion.

I certainly am not an expert on it, but I understand the concepts. It is a matter of faith in the big bang theory. That faith is obviously grounded in the fact that it seems internally consistent and seems to match reality. I was not trying to be to critical of it being a matter of faith, only stating a fact.

All this hinges on the redshift relationship which hinges on the correct value of the cosmic coefficient, etc. If any part of the theory turns out to be incorrect, all that is left is the observation.

What happens when we get a newer and better Hubble telescope and the Hubble constant has to be revised again? Every time a new technology is employed, the big bang theory needs to be reformulated (Hubble constant, expansion theory, 96% dark matter, …). Any theory can be kept alive using that principle (yes, even Geocentrism).

 

[wanerious]

trth_skr:

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
"Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center…"

No, actually he is simply decribing the geometry of the map as it came out. See this website:

Yes, I know — you are misinterpreting his simplicity. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic; because of this, each point in the universe can be considered to be at the “center” of the cosmic expansion. He is certainly not arguing that the Universe spins around the Earth in just such a way as to mimic a spinning Earth.