Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[trth_skr]

scm:

Suppose I was somewhere in space, and a friend of mine was off in space a distance away from me. If I managed to start myself rotating, I would get a feeling in my gut as a result of the acceleration. I am the one actually rotating, and I can say so because I can feel it in my gut. My friend would feel nothing, he is not revolving around me, he is not accelerating.

If the tables were turned, and I stayed stationary and my friend managed to start revolving around me, he would feel it in HIS gut, he is the one who is accelerating. I would feel nothing, because I am not accelerating, I am stationary.

If we were sensitive enough we would be able to feel the fact that we are on a rotating earth, however I suspect there are instruments that can measure the acceleration.

Are you saying that my distant friend can revolve around me, and thus induce a feeling of acceleration in my gut?

If you were sensitive enough (and I mean extremely, extremely, extremely sensitive) I suppose your friend could induce this feeling. The key is gravititation. If you follow the link at the top of this thread, you will see how I expalin that the distant rotating cosmic masses generate forces at earth- gravitational and inertial (Coriolis, centrifigal, etc.). In fact in general relativity, gravitational and inertial forces are a manifestation of one phenomenon referred to as gravito-magnetism.

scm:

The reason I arrived at this is because from the little I know about time dilation, it is the one who is Actually accelerating that experiences the dilation. Even though the twin on earth sees the twin in the space ship accelerating away from him, and the twin on the ship sees the twin on earth accelerating away from HIM, only one is actually accelerating.

So in my laymans understanding, acceleration is not relative so to speak. And therefore I can use it to tell who is really rotating.

Ok, pysicists be gentle…

In the Geocentric case, the entire universe is accelerating (moving in rotation at constant angular rate). There is no earth vs. universe. The earth is stable because it is gyroscopically stabilized at the center of mass of the universe.

see, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, GRAVITATION (pp. 1117-1119)

Also, at the earth, nothing is moving any faster than one rotation per 24 hours, so what you would feel is similar to what you do (not) feel sitting on the earth. Ifthe universe is rotating around the stabilized earth, it will affect instruments capable of detecting rotation.

 

[wanerious]

PhilVaz:

(9) Parallax in the starfields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the sun
(10) Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto
(11) 14 billion light year star field rotating around the earth once a day and wobbling with a amplitude of 186 million miles at an angle of 23.5 degrees annually is untenble
(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion
(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury
(15) Frame dragging around the rotating earth (just empirically demonstrated)

These, in my opinion, are the most damning. Even if you subscribe to a hard Mach interpretation, these involve observations quite independent of any external, “universal” rotating frame and demand many strange and enormous ad-hoc forces. How, for instance, are we to interpret the small parallax shift of stars? That, for some reason, these stars undergo mysterious corrections in their orbits around the earth in just such a way as to mimic local rotation? That they also demonstrate different corrections that correlate with the star’s derived luminosity and apparent brightness, exactly as if they were at different distances from a rotating earth? And, on top of that, that somehow the light leaving these objects is subtly red- and blue-shifted exactly in step with our period around the Sun? And each of the points have similar difficulties. Why would we not unify all observations with the simple postulate of a rotating Earth, for which we need invent no new and arbitrary explanations? This is why geocentrism is not a serious assertion, no more than saying that there are no atoms.

 

[trth_skr]

scm << So in my laymans understanding, acceleration is not relative so to speak. And therefore I can use it to tell who is really rotating. Ok, pysicists be gentle… >>

I am definitely not a physicist, I’m sure more knowledgeable folks will answer…Here are the disproofs of geocentrism offered before in this Jan 2005 thread by HECD2:

(1) Satellites are launched to the east

explained in the linked thread:
catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875

(2) Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible

explained in the linked thread:
catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875

(3) Inertial frames of reference have no unresolved forces

The earth is not necassarily an inertial reference frame.

(4) The earth has obvious unresolved forces

Only in the rotating earth case. In the Geocentric case, these forces (Coriols, centrifigal, etc.) are directly attributable to the distant rotating cosmic masses. see link:

catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875

and here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=689300&postcount=28

(5) Foucault’s pendulum

Explained here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=689306&postcount=29

(6) Weather systems

This is pretty vague.

(7) Oblate earth

Einsteins co-equivalence.

(8) Newtonian mechanics

Works in Geocentric and heliocentric.

(9) Parallax in the starfields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the sun

Observations cannot distinguish relative motions.See here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=687941&postcount=9

(10) Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto

Red shift is attributed to the expansion of space. What does this have to do with parallax or rotation around the sun? Not everyone accepts redshift.

(11) 14 billion light year star field rotating around the earth once a day and wobbling with a amplitude of 186 million miles at an angle of 23.5 degrees annually is untenble

Explained in link:

catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875

(12) Rotation of solar system about galactic centre and other proper motions

All relative motions. Exist in both systems.

(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion

Observations, see same link as 9.

(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury

Relative motions.

(15) Frame dragging around the rotating earth (just empirically demonstrated)

Coud be due to either rotation of the earth or the universe. Coannot distinguish.

Some are more popular or well known than others I guess. And I am not prepared to get into the physics I’ll admit, but the history of “creationism” in this country (whether flat-earthism, geocentrism, or young-earth creationism) is well explained and well refuted by this article

Geocentrism is not Creationism.

Poor batting average, Phil.

 

[wanerious]

quote=trth_skr Parallax in the starfields as a consequence of earth’s rotation round the sun

Observations cannot distinguish relative motions.

[/quote]

Only if you postulate a mysterious force that shifts the apparent positions of the stars (real positions, then) in order to match the observed shift. I don’t think you understand what an incredible assertion this is.

(10) Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto

Red shift is attributed to the expansion of space. If there is observable red shift due to relative motion between sun and earth, then the same relative motion occurs in Geocentric case, so it will still be observed.

No, this is a real Doppler shift attributed to the fact that we are approaching the star during one part of the year, and receding six months later. Again, strange and arbitrary physics need to be invoked to explain it. This has nothing to do with the cosmological redshift of space.

(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion

Observations, see same link as 9.

(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury

Relative motions.

Not good enough. They are only explainable with arbitrary, magical forces created to exactly imitate the rotating earth.

 

[PhilVaz]

truthseek << Geocentrism is not Creationism. >>

In my book it is, any “scientific theory” that has its roots in a particular biblical interpretation that has been abandoned by modern science (flat-earthism, geocentrism, young-earth) is Creationism.

Okay, prove me wrong and show me any geocentrists (today or in the past) who accept both a 4.5 billion year old earth and macroevolution. Geocentrists, along with flat-earthers and young-earthers get their “science” from the Bible, that’s my definition of Creationism (capital C).

BTW, I responded to your Benedict XVI comment on evolution and meaninglessness, the International Theological Commission said the same thing, evolution is guided and meaningful since God is behind it. God works through natural forces. See posts # 33 and 34 above, and the "Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God" document approved by Cardinal Ratzinger last year, especially paragraphs 62 to 70. That is the latest official Vatican statement on creation and evolution. Also Catechism 159, 283-284.

You, wanerius, HECD2 or whoever can now argue “parallax” the next couple dozen posts.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

truthseek (Mark), I have a question. Have you looked up these original papers yourself, or are you going by citations from Bob Sungenis CAI site?

Mark << Here Einstein explains it: >>

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

Mark << Hans Thirring concludes his paper with: >>

Have you looked up the original papers by Einstein, Thirring, Max Born or others you cite, or are you relying on citations of these by Sungenis?

BTW, in my study on evolution in response to Sungenis, I have looked up all the sources I cite here, namely all my cites from Vertebrate Paleontology by Carroll (1988), On the Origin of Phyla by Valentine (2004), Gaining Ground by Clack (2002), and others. And checking the context to make sure I have it right. I’m not relying on online citations of these, I actually went to the library and looked them up.

I don’t critique science, I accept it, but I at least try to do my own research. I’m not saying that’s enough, but that’s at least a start. Are you looking up all the citations you provide, or are you relying on articles by Sungenis and other geocentrists?

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

wanerious:

Only if you postulate a mysterious force that shifts the apparent positions of the stars (real positions, then) in order to match the observed shift. …

The universe rotates around the earth daily on the earth’s N-pole axis. The universe precesses on the 23.5 deg. ecliptic, carrying the stars and solar system on an annual cycle. These drawings originally from Robert Sungenis explain the motions. There are likely other precessions. Notice the abberation.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

This one expalins parallax.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Precession of Mercury will happen in either system.

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

…flat-earthers…
Phil P

Phil, please do not insult Geocentrists by putting flat earth in the same category as Geocentrism. Creationism you can argue for, I agree most Geocentrists tend to be creationsists, but very feew are flat earthers.

Very few Fathers were flat earthers. No Popes made any official declarations regarding a flat earth.

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

…Are you looking up all the citations you provide, or are you relying on articles by Sungenis and other geocentrists?

Phil P

It is mixed. I get those papers I can fairly easily, I do my own independent research, I discuss these issues with non_ZGeocentrist scientists, I cross-check Robert’s and other peoples research where I can, and in some cases I accept Robert’s and others research. So far I have not found a claim from Robert that I cannot back up with his sources, but I have certainlynot checked all of them.

I always try and back up claims with indepenndent sources where possible, as a minimum.

 

[PhilVaz]

DO NOT put those huge pictures in the thread. You just mucked up the thread man. And it was going so well for you.

Quickly edit those posts, and put SMALLER versions of those images. I am on 800 x 600 resolution here.

But I will try to continue to read the thread…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

Mark truthseek << Creationism you can argue for, I agree most Geocentrists tend to be creationists, but very few are flat earthers. Very few Fathers were flat earthers. No Popes made any official declarations regarding a flat earth. >>

A few Fathers can be interpreted as flat-earthers, but it wasn’t a major position in the history of Christianity. I agree. HOWEVER, both flat-earthers and geocentrists (today or in the past) get their beliefs mainly from the Bible, and geocentrism was simply the “science of the day” (15th-16th century) as “flat-earthism” was the science of the ancient Babylonians, Egyptians, and Israelites (as seen in the Bible). See the article by Schadewald I linked once again. Geocentrism is definitely creationism (a “Bible-based” science) no question.

Ordered three new books from Amazon.com to get myself educated, Bible and Science by Fr. Jaki, Origin of the Human Species by Bonnett, and Cardinal Ratzinger’s commentary on Genesis titled In the Beginning. Hooray they just shipped.

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

Mark truthseek HOWEVER, both flat-earthers and geocentrists (today or in the past) get their beliefs mainly from the Bible,
Phil P

Phil, last time I checked, most Christians also get their beliefs mainly from the Bible (granted for Catholic Christians it is as interpreted authoritatively by the Church).

Hope you enjoy the books. Make sure you read some of the Fathers on the subject too (try Bellarmine). The modern way is not the only way, and in the extreme it is a real mess (modernism).

The Ratzinger book should be interesting. I wonder how it compares to Augustrine’s “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis”? Let us know.

Mark

 

[PhilVaz]

<< Phil, last time I checked, most Christians also get their beliefs mainly from the Bible >>

Yes, Christian or Catholic doctrinal beliefs, not scientific beliefs. John Paul II wrote over 20 years ago:

“Cosmogony and cosmology have always aroused great interest among peoples and religions. The Bible itself speaks to us of the origin of the universe and its make-up, not in order to provide us with a scientific treatise, but in order to state the correct relationships of man with God and with the universe. Sacred Scripture wishes simply to declare that the world was created by God, and in order to teach this truth it expresses itself in the terms of the cosmology in use at the time of the writer. The Sacred Book likewise wishes to tell men that the world was not created as the seat of the gods, as was taught by other cosmogonies and cosmologies, but was rather created for the service of man and the glory of God. Any other teaching about the origin and make-up of the universe is alien to the intentions of the Bible, which does not wish to teach how heaven was made but how one goes to heaven.” (Pope John Paul II, 10/3/1981 to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, "Cosmology and Fundamental Physics")

That is exactly my position. It is very clear: “do not get your science from the Bible.” Sungenis and yourself (and Bouw "The Biblical Astronomer" and Marshall Hall, etc) think the Bible teaches “how the heavens were made.” I seem to have missed the part about “cosmic background radiation” (CBR) or “cosmic microwave background” (CMB) in Genesis.

As for science, I’m interested in studying modern science, not going back in time and learning the “latest scientific insights” from Cardinal Bellarmine. Why in the world should I be interested in reading what he has to say on science? I prefer Fr. Stanley Jaki, a distinguished physicist who lives in our time. Hello TruthSeeker Mark, the 21st century is calling.

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

Yes, Christian or Catholic doctrinal beliefs, not scientific beliefs…

As for science, I’m interested in studying modern science, not going back in time and learning the “latest scientific insights” from Cardinal Bellarmine. Why in the world should I be interested in reading what he has to say on science? I prefer Fr. Stanley Jaki, a distinguished physicist who lives in our time…
Phil P

But when doctrine and science just happen to coincide, who gets first dibs, God or secular man?

Actually, the topic of “Bible and Science” sounds more like philosophy then actual science. Since it has not been proven that the earth moves, the Geocentric issue is still a philosophical one. Bellarmine understood the philosophical implications then as well as anyone today.

I have no reason to believe that anyone today is intrinsically smarter than 500 years ago, other than perhaps due to statistics and a larger population. When we consider how much modernism has encroached into our thinking, they may still have had a better chance back then, statistics included.

 

[boppysbud]

Are you guys claiming to be “geocentrists” really serious?

Do you also beleive that when your reach the end of the flat earth you will fall off?

Sorry, but I cannot take any of this seriously.

 

[PhilVaz]

boppy << Are you guys claiming to be “geocentrists” really serious? >>

Oh its serious. Bob Sungenis has one “convert” that we know of (truthseek Mark) so far, there might be others. They’ll say the “flat earth” position was never a dominant position in the Church, but geocentrism was (up to the 16th century at least).

Although I’m sure he’ll correct me, I think what truthseek Mark’s position is that “heliocentrism” (or acentrism) is simply not “proven” scientifically any better than geocentrism, and both involve philosophical assumptions. So we might as well stick with geocentrism since the Bible teaches it, and some 16th century Popes and Cardinals taught it.

There really aren’t any good books you can buy on the great “geocentrism” debate (I wish there were, so I could understand the physics better) these days since it was settled about 300 years ago, the real “controversy” (at least among the general public, but not scientists) is this intelligent design stuff.

Phil P

 

[Primitive]

Geocentricism is stupid and so are all the other Theories…everyone knows that GOD is the center of te universe, and EVERYTHING revolves around HIM!!!

But I must add that I still do like Robert Sungenis even thought he supports it…I just think it is a waste of time to argue…really, who cares, we are going to find that all out when we die anyway, so why not just worry about Jesus and let the rest fall into place.

 

[Liberian]

trth_skr:

Nor do I think Geocentrism can be disproven.

trth_skr,

Right here you have put your finger on the difference between a scientific theory and something that is not a scientific theory. A scientific theory can be disproven by observations that do not fit it. A theory that cannot be disproven, no matter what the observations are, is not science.

If you want geocentricism to be taken seriously as a scientific theory, come up with an experiment whose results can disprove it. Then go carry out the experiment and see what happens.

I will repeat my earlier contention that geocentricism is simply a change of coordinate system from regular physics and cosmology. As such, it is not so much incorrect as not useful for scientific purposes.

• Liberian

 

[Liberian]

trth_skr:

In the Geocentric case, the entire universe is accelerating (moving in rotation at constant angular rate). There is no earth vs. universe. The earth is stable because it is gyroscopically stabilized at the center of mass of the universe.

see, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, GRAVITATION (pp. 1117-1119)

Also, at the earth, nothing is moving any faster than one rotation per 24 hours, so what you would feel is similar to what you do (not) feel sitting on the earth. Ifthe universe is rotating around the stabilized earth, it will affect instruments capable of detecting rotation.

trth_skr,

Too bad I didn’t see this yesterday. I’ll be looking up the reference in “Phone book Wheeler” when I get to work on Tuesday.

Another weakness of geocentricism is the question of what is causing the universe to slow its rotation about the earth. It has been measured, after all, that the day is getting longer by a few milliseconds per century. But this thread is getting too deep for me and I will post this question on a new thread.

• Liberian

 

[hecd2]

trth_skr:

Got the articles [First Year WMAP and Sloan Digital Sky Survey papers] Pretty wild stuff. I will look through it as I get time. It must have been pretty exciting to be on that team.

Don’t you think that that is rather patronising given your misguided mission to pretend that the concordance model is flakey? What team are you talking about - the WMAP team, the SDSS team, the 2dFGRS team? BOOMERANG? MAXIMA?

It is clear that they are fitting parameters to there favored model, hot big bang with lots of dark matter and dark energy. Not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

They are fitting data to the only credible model that currently exists.

What if the model is not correct?

Then sooner or later we will observe something that doesn’t fit the model, and we will have to modify it or abandon it, whereas at the moment all the detailed observations are consistent with it.

I understand that they are using the parameter fits to validate the model. But when you have to postulate ~96% of the matter content of the universe to be undetectable stuff (i.e., directly undetectable), this leaves a lot of questions open.

What do you mean by 'directly detectable? Have you ever seen an electron? Do you accept that electons exist? Let’s take dark matter - we know that dark matter exists because of a) its gravitational influence on the rotation of galaxies b) the distribution of peculiar velocities of stars in clusters, the so-called Zwicky effect c) gravitational lensing (note that I am using this term correctly unlike you) d) the binding of very hot X-ray emitting gas in galaxies and clusters. Odd how compelling the detection of this ‘undetectable’ matter is…

As for questions, of course there are questions: here are a few:
a) What is the precise nature and physics of the dark matter
b) Is the universe infinite spatially?
c) Big Crunch or Big Rip?
d) What is the topology of space?
e) What is Dark Energy?
f) Why is the energy density of vacuum energy 10^120 times less than we calculate with quantum field theory?
g) Is there a Higgs boson? etc etc

In science, there are always unanswered questions, but that doesn’t mean, as you try to imply, that the model is flakey.

Alec
evolutionpages.com