Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[scm]

trth_skr:

Actually, not true. Go back to the diagram, here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…69&postcount=67

The sun is close the the earth so this precession causes the sun to move annually around the earth. Note that the distant stars exhibit abberation. Also, there would have to be other precessions to account for other relative motions.

Precessions can occur due for instance to non-umiform distribution of mass within the universe.

If we take the neo-Tychonian system (same as modern Tychonian, except the rotation of stars are centered on the sun rather than the earth), there could be a torque caused by the moment arm from the earth-solar system rotation and star-sun rotation.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Are you intentionally slippery?
First you said the universe rotates and is a gyroscopic system that stabilizes the earth at its center. Then you said that it precesses. Now you are saying there are many gyroscopic systems interracting and causing each other to precess. each of them having the earth at the center.

I wonder if you shifted because in order for a universal gyroscopic system to precess a force would have to be applied to it from outside of the universe.

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

Are you intentionally slippery?
First you said the universe rotates and is a gyroscopic system that stabilizes the earth at its center. Then you said that it precesses. Now you are saying there are many gyroscopic systems interracting and causing each other to precess. each of them having the earth at the center.

I wonder if you shifted because in order for a universal gyroscopic system to precess a force would have to be applied to it from outside of the universe.

scm:

This diagram showing the main (annual) precession of the universe:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…69&postcount=67

was posted over a week before you asked your question. In fact it was created by Robert Sungenis over a year ago. Also, I do not see my description as many gyroscopic systems precessing. It is still one, but there may be multiple precessions, non-isotropic mass distribution, etc.In the case of the neo-Tychonic, this is a little more complex system.

I do not have a comprehensive model of a Geocentric universe. I am just trying to offer explanations for your questions. There are a lot of issues invloved, and a number of possible explanations for some issues- just like current cosmology.

There are subtly different Geocentric systems described by different people (especially Sungenis and Buow).

Wait until Robert Sungenmis book, “Galileo Was Wrong” comes out. He will be able to lay out the case in great detail.

The real point is that the alternate case (i.e. heliocentrism, acentrism) is not proven, and to boot, no one has yet to demonstrate that the earth rotates or translates.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

This diagram showing the main (annual) precession of the universe:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…69&postcount=67

was posted over a week before you asked your question. In fact it was created by Robert Sungenis over a year ago. Also, I do not see my description as many gyroscopic systems precessing. It is still one, but there may be multiple precessions, non-isotropic mass distribution, etc.In the case of the neo-Tychonic, this is a more complex system.

I do not have a comprehensive model of a Geocentric universe. I am just trying to offer explanations for your questions. There are a lot of issues invloved, and a number of possible explanations for some issues- just like current cosmology.

There are subtly different Geocentric systems described by different people (especially Sungenis and Buow).

Wait until Robert Sungenmis book, “Galileo Was Wrong” comes out. He will be able to lay out the case in great detail.

The real point is that the alternate case (i.e. heliocentrism, acentrism) is not proven, and to boot, no one has yet to demonstrate that the earth rotates or translates.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[scm]

trth_skr:

scm:

This diagram showing the main (annual) precession of the universe:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…69&postcount=67

was posted over a week before you asked your question. In fact it was created by Robert Sungenis over a year ago. Also, I do not see my description as many gyroscopic systems precessing. It is still one, but there may be multiple precessions, non-isotropic mass distribution, etc.In the case of the neo-Tychonic, this is a little more complex system.

I do not have a comprehensive model of a Geocentric universe. I am just trying to offer explanations for your questions. There are a lot of issues invloved, and a number of possible explanations for some issues- just like current cosmology.

There are subtly different Geocentric systems described by different people (especially Sungenis and Buow).

Wait until Robert Sungenmis book, “Galileo Was Wrong” comes out. He will be able to lay out the case in great detail.

The real point is that the alternate case (i.e. heliocentrism, acentrism) is not proven, and to boot, no one has yet to demonstrate that the earth rotates or translates.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I’ll say it one more time. In order for a gyroscopic system to precess a force has to be applied. You posited that the entire universe is rotating in order to support a geocentric view. Then to explain relative motions you posited that it is in fact a gyroscopic system which is under an anual prescession.

In order for a universe to precess, a force would have to be applied from outside the universe.
It is impossible for a force to be applied from outside the universe.

Your claims can not be supported.

The line of reasoning: rotating universe, stabilized earth, precession, is counter to physics and reality.

It looks to me like very simple physics can prove your claims wrong, and in as much as they are your support for geocentrism, it proves geocentrism wrong.

If I were you I would not claim in the future that the universe is rotating as a gyroscopic system which stabilizes the earth and it is precessing, and that this is support for a geocentric position. It is actually nonsense.

You have been pinned down on this point. Then you change position and say what the “real point” is.
The real point is that Geocentrism as you present it contradicts simple physics. I would invite you to use simple physics, applied to arguments supporting the currently accepted view of the universe to contradict them.

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

I’ll say it one more time. In order for a gyroscopic system to precess a force has to be applied. You posited that the entire universe is rotating in order to support a geocentric view. Then to explain relative motions you posited that it is in fact a gyroscopic system which is under an anual prescession.

In order for a universe to precess, a force would have to be applied from outside the universe.
It is impossible for a force to be applied from outside the universe.

Your claims can not be supported.

The line of reasoning: rotating universe, stabilized earth, precession, is counter to physics and reality.

It looks to me like very simple physics can prove your claims wrong, and in as much as they are your support for geocentrism, it proves geocentrism wrong.

If I were you I would not claim in the future that the universe is rotating as a gyroscopic system which stabilizes the earth and it is precessing, and that this is support for a geocentric position. It is actually nonsense.

You have been pinned down on this point. Then you change position and say what the “real point” is.
The real point is that Geocentrism as you present it contradicts simple physics. I would invite you to use simple physics, applied to arguments supporting the currently accepted view of the universe to contradict them.

Sorry, that is not true. The universe rotating and precessing is an explanation for Geocentrism. I do not have the exact physics to describe the system, but from an observational point of view, a rotating precessing universe accounts for the observations (i.e., relative motions, etc.). A gyroscopically stabilized universe accounts for the origin of the stabilization. See the source I quoted previously (Wheeler, Thorne, Misner, “Gravitation”). You still have not adressed the possibility that a non-isotropic mass distribution can cause a precession or precessions.You make it sound like I just pulled these explanations out of a hat. This is ont the case. It may seem so, but this is due to the nature of these forums. I did not start this thread with a full exposition on Geocentrism. I think it is beyond the scope and size limitations of the format.

If you really feel you have disproven Geocentrism based on this point, I invite you to take your challenge to Robert Sungenis.If you can convince him that Geocentrism is impossible, he will give you $1000. Here is the link:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

Answer these questions for me:

Where did the mass of the universe in the big bang come from? Where did the enegry come from? If you say the last big crunch, how did it all get staretd? The point is there are a lot of unanswered questions in cosmology. The exact mechanism of an acentric universe or a Geocentric one have yet to be defined completely.

And as far as Geocentricity from my perspecticve is concerned, the main point is that neither helio nor acentrism have been demonstrated in a way that cannot be interpreted Geocentrically, plus I am Catholic, and I ask, if this is the case, why do we automatically accept non-Geocentric explanations over what our Church, purportedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has said?

At the least, why not have an open mind about the posssibility of Geocentrism.

Just because we can describe a system in a particular way (i.e., heliocentric solar system) does not disprve other interpretations, as I pointed out as part of the the main point of this thread (dealing with Gary Hoge’s supposed demonstration against Geocentrism). The topic has changed to a much more general one. And I am trying to keep up and answer questions. Keep in mind that Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing an entier book on this topic (Galileo was Wrong). I can only do so much in terms of detail in a discussion of this type.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[scm]

trth_skr:

Sorry, that is not true. The universe rotating and precessing is an explanation for Geocentrism. I do not have the exact physics to describe the system, but from an observational point of view, a rotating precessing universe accounts for the observations (i.e., relative motions, etc.). A gyroscopically stabilized universe accounts for the origin of the stabilization. See the source I quoted previously (Wheeler, Thorne, Misner, “Gravitation”). You still have not adressed the possibility that a non-isotropic mass distribution can cause a precession or precessions.You make it sound like I just pulled these explanations out of a hat. This is ont the case. It may seem so, but this is due to the nature of these forums. I did not start this thread with a full exposition on Geocentrism. I think it is beyond the scope and size limitations of the format.

If you really feel you have disproven Geocentrism based on this point, I invite you to take your challenge to Robert Sungenis.If you can convince him that Geocentrism is impossible, he will give you $1000. Here is the link:

catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm

Answer these questions for me:

Where did the mass of the universe in the big bang come from? Where did the enegry come from? If you say the last big crunch, how did it all get staretd? The point is there are a lot of unanswered questions in cosmology. The exact mechanism of an acentric universe or a Geocentric one have yet to be defined completely.

And as far as Geocentricity from my perspecticve is concerned, the main point is that neither helio nor acentrism have been demonstrated in a way that cannot be interpreted Geocentrically, plus I am Catholic, and I ask, if this is the case, why do we automatically accept non-Geocentric explanations over what our Church, purportedly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit has said?

At the least, why not have an open mind about the posssibility of Geocentrism.

Just because we can describe a system in a particular way (i.e., heliocentric solar system) does not disprve other interpretations, as I pointed out as part of the the main point of this thread (dealing with Gary Hoge’s supposed demonstration against Geocentrism). The topic has changed to a much more general one. And I am trying to keep up and answer questions. Keep in mind that Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett are writing an entier book on this topic (Galileo was Wrong). I can only do so much in terms of detail in a discussion of this type.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

You did it again. It is quoted here. “The universe rotating and precessing is an explaination of Geocentrism”.

It can not precess without a force being applied from outside the universe.

By standing firm on the above statement, you yourself have proven geocentrism is incorrect.

As for what you want me to prove. I posited nothing. There is no burden on me to come up with an alternate explanation. I have simply shown that your explanation quickly leads to nonsense, that is, a force from outside the universe is required. So we can rule out a geocentric explaination.

On the other hand. YOU as someone making an extrordinary claim, are burdened with supporting your argument. You say that “I do not have the exact physics to describe the system”, then you should not be putting forth such claims.
Go and get the physics and come back, in the mean time, you can not reasonably put forth a rotating precessing universe to anyone else since they need only point out what I have pointed out.

Stumped by simple physics you ask me “why not keep an open mind about geocentrism”. I am sorry. It fails a simple test of reality.

Also as your “scientific” argument crumbled you retreated to your faith. If your position is faith based, then I would stick with that.

Also, emphasizing that two Geocentrists are writing a whole book on it, is very close to applying the logical fallacy of “Apeal to Authority”, be careful about that.

Now I will tell you something more.
I am a born again Christian Catholic. I believe in Creation, I don’t believe in evolution. I do not belive in the “Big Bang”. I have read Genesis. I simply do not see Geocentrism there. If you disagree with me on that, we should start another thread devoted to analysis of the Scriptures.

 

[buffalo]

JimG:

OK, so we have our Sun located on one arm of a spiral galaxy. Our sun has a planetary system in which the earth is the third planet out. The next nearest star is some 4 light years away. Yet the universe is populated by millions of similar galaxies comprised of a wide variety of stars in varying stages of development, many probably with planetary systems.

This picture of the universe presented by modern cosmology is one of galaxies which are rather evenly distributed throughout space; while space is expanding in a manner analogous to the surface of an expanding balloon. Dots on the balloon represent galaxies, while the two dimensional surface of the balloon represents our normal 3-dimensional space. (The interior of the balloon may be envisioned as filling up with the passage of time, rather than air.)

Now, when I think of one galaxy (ours) out of those millions, and one star (ours) within that galaxy, and one planet (ours) within that solar system, and try to conceive of *everything else * in the entire expanding universe rotating around that one planet, the idea is simply ridiculous.

Father Coyne references necessary processes and chance processes. He talks about the universe being fertile to the combination of chance and necessity.

He makes the point that in the visible universe there are 10 to the 76th atoms. A human sperm and egg have the ability to make 10 to the 605th genetic combnations.

How is it that the fundamental building blocks of the universe brought about 10 to the 605th genetic possibilities.

Fr Coyne says we should be humble and modest about our knowledge of the universe. (if we reduce the 14 billion year timeline to 365 days, our knowledge of the univeres amounts to 1 second of one day.)

He makes an additional point that we are at the top. Because God wants it that way, but does not determine it.

So why would it be hard to believe that being the center of the universe is necessary - (anthropic coincidences.)

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

You did it again. It is quoted here. “The universe rotating and precessing is an explaination of Geocentrism”.

It can not precess without a force being applied from outside the universe.

By standing firm on the above statement, you yourself have proven geocentrism is incorrect.

As for what you want me to prove. I posited nothing. There is no burden on me to come up with an alternate explanation. I have simply shown that your explanation quickly leads to nonsense, that is, a force from outside the universe is required. So we can rule out a geocentric explaination.

On the other hand. YOU as someone making an extrordinary claim, are burdened with supporting your argument. You say that “I do not have the exact physics to describe the system”, then you should not be putting forth such claims.
Go and get the physics and come back, in the mean time, you can not reasonably put forth a rotating precessing universe to anyone else since they need only point out what I have pointed out.

Stumped by simple physics you ask me “why not keep an open mind about geocentrism”. I am sorry. It fails a simple test of reality.

Also as your “scientific” argument crumbled you retreated to your faith. If your position is faith based, then I would stick with that.

Also, emphasizing that two Geocentrists are writing a whole book on it, is very close to applying the logical fallacy of “Apeal to Authority”, be careful about that.

Now I will tell you something more.
I am a born again Christian Catholic. I believe in Creation, I don’t believe in evolution. I do not belive in the “Big Bang”. I have read Genesis. I simply do not see Geocentrism there. If you disagree with me on that, we should start another thread devoted to analysis of the Scriptures.

Well I am glad we agree on some things. Clearly it is not “required” to believe in Geocentrism.

You are still ignoring two explanations I have given for the precession(s):

1. Anisotropic mass distribution (i.e., an unbalanced gyroscope)
2. The neo-Tychonic universe model (with a lever arm )

What is to rule out that God did not initiate a disturbance when he started the universe? This is a third possibility. How long would it take for such a disturbance to dissipate? A million years? A billion?

The point about writing a book about it is not “appeal to authority”, but rather just pointing out that we are dealing with a lot less space and time (no physics pun intended) to develop ideas in a forum like this. A subject like this requires book length explanation to do it justice.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

buffalo:

Father Coyne references necessary processes and chance processes. He talks about the universe being fertile to the combination of chance and necessity.

He makes the point that in the visible universe there are 10 to the 76th atoms. A human sperm and egg have the ability to make 10 to the 605th genetic combnations.

How is it that the fundamental building blocks of the universe brought about 10 to the 605th genetic possibilities.

Fr Coyne says we should be humble and modest about our knowledge of the universe. (if we reduce the 14 billion year timeline to 365 days, our knowledge of the univeres amounts to 1 second of one day.)

He makes an additional point that we are at the top. Because God wants it that way, but does not determine it.

So why would it be hard to believe that being the center of the universe is necessary - (anthropic coincidences.)

I find the Anthropic principle interesting, but it does not answer to authoritative statements made by three Popes regarding Geocentrism. Nor does it answer to the authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers, Geocentrically.

I think at the point the Anthropic principle gets used as an apology for modern science against Church positions or when it tries to replace past Church teachings, it is taken too far. I do believe the basic idea, that God’s design is apparent throughout his creation and that the imprint of intelligence is upon this design (as opposed to random accident) is of great interest.

www.vveritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Nate]

scm:

You did it again. It is quoted here. “The universe rotating and precessing is an explaination of Geocentrism”.

Scm, I think the real argument that is being given for geocentrism is that a non-preferred referrence frame is axiomatic to general relativity, so that a disproof of geocentrism requires a disproof of GR. Most of the attempted disproofs have been in the form of showing that Newtonian mechanics applied with a rotating earth nicely agrees with observation, and a challenge for someone to use GR to duplicate those results, which I think is really impossible because the data on the mass distribution of the universe, required for a calculation, are unknown.

The axiom of a non preferred reference frame is in the end just an unproven assertion that seems to work on a local level and at the limited conditions we can test at. I am also skeptical that it holds universally but cannot prove it. As long as we are throwing out challenges to that axiom however I would just mention mine.

A universe rotating at superrelativistic speeds composed of stars would need a huge external force to keep it rotating because of the energy loss due to synchrotron radiation. Stars are fully ionized plasmas, and each charged particle, when moving at relativistic speeds in an orbit, puts out a forward directed (outward) pencil of radiation that increases with the fourth power of the relativistic mass ratio. This produces electromagnetic drag on the prarticles and slows them down unless an external force is applied. But a force external to the universe is self contradictory, so a rotating universe does not seem possible. This means that a non rotating coordinate system with its origin at the universal center of mass is the preferred frame, and any frame that is not compatible with that, like a stationary geocentric one, will not work.

 

[trth_skr]

Nate:

Scm, I think the real argument that is being given for geocentrism is that a non-preferred referrence frame is axiomatic to general relativity, so that a disproof of geocentrism requires a disproof of GR. Most of the attempted disproofs have been in the form of showing that Newtonian mechanics applied with a rotating earth nicely agrees with observation, and a challenge for someone to use GR to duplicate those results, which I think is really impossible because the data on the mass distribution of the universe, required for a calculation, are unknown.

The axiom of a non preferred reference frame is in the end just an unproven assertion that seems to work on a local level and at the limited conditions we can test at. I am also skeptical that it holds universally but cannot prove it. As long as we are throwing out challenges to that axiom however I would just mention mine.

A universe rotating at superrelativistic speeds composed of stars would need a huge external force to keep it rotating because of the energy loss due to synchrotron radiation. Stars are fully ionized plasmas, and each charged particle, when moving at relativistic speeds in an orbit, puts out a forward directed (outward) pencil of radiation that increases with the fourth power of the relativistic mass ratio. This produces electromagnetic drag on the prarticles and slows them down unless an external force is applied. But a force external to the universe is self contradictory, so a rotating universe does not seem possible. This means that a non rotating coordinate system with its origin at the universal center of mass is the preferred frame, and any frame that is not compatible with that, like a stationary geocentric one, will not work.

Nate:

Thanks for actually adressing the topic of the thread!

The stars are not really moving at relativistic speeds. True, relative to the fixed earth their velocity is >> c, but locally there is no violation of light speed, i.e., they never exceed their own future light cones. Light will travel between objects on the “rim” of the universe (or anywhere else) at normal light speeds. Since the universe is rotating, light from the distant stars travel radially down to the earth, roating with the universe as it travels.

An physical explanation could be found in presuming an underlying aether or other structure to the universe.

I agree the calculation would be extremely complex, but this does not invalisdate the idea.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[Steve_Andersen]

……. The stars are not really moving at relativistic speeds. True, relative to the fixed earth their velocity is >> c,

Um, err …not relativistic but >>c?!!?!?

……. An physical explanation could be found in presuming an underlying aether or other structure to the universe.

I agree the calculation would be extremely complex, but this does not invalisdate the idea……

Several centuries of experiments trying to find the aether were abandoned mostly based on the principal of parsimony. Other, more elegant explanations were found.

Oddly enough, many anti-evolutionist use complexity as an argument against it.

 

[scm]

trth_skr:

Well I am glad we agree on some things. Clearly it is not “required” to believe in Geocentrism.

You are still ignoring two explanations I have given for the precession(s):

1. Anisotropic mass distribution (i.e., an unbalanced gyroscope)
2. The neo-Tychonic universe model (with a lever arm )

What is to rule out that God did not initiate a disturbance when he started the universe? This is a third possibility. How long would it take for such a disturbance to dissipate? A million years? A billion?

The point about writing a book about it is not “appeal to authority”, but rather just pointing out that we are dealing with a lot less space and time (no physics pun intended) to develop ideas in a forum like this. A subject like this requires book length explanation to do it justice.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I have located an abstract of a research paper describing the motion of an unbalanced spherical gyroscope. The abstract speaks of a translational component and an angular component to the motion. Unfortunately, the paper is in Russian. I will contact the author and report back. I hope he speaks english.

 

[Nate]

trth_skr:

The stars are not really moving at relativistic speeds. True, relative to the fixed earth their velocity is >> c, but locally there is no violation of light speed, i.e., they never exceed their own future light cones.

Hi trth_skr, I’m not sure you understood my post. I didn’t say the stars exceeded the speed of light. Relativistic speeds are those that APPROACH the speed of light. In order to generate the kinds of gravi-magnetic effects capeable of producing the observed motion of pendulums and other effects attributed to a rotating earth, the stars have been said to be well into the relativistic range, having relativistic masses so large as to change the local light speed by gravity. At such speeds they would radiate energy in a narrow cone in their travel direction which would never reach the earth but would always be away from the center of curvature (the earth). We observe this kind of radiation in relativistic electron beams in Synchrotrons and Tokamak disruptions.

The conversions of directed kinetic energy into dispersive radiant energy would slow the particles down (at least that is what always happens on earth) and eventually stop the universe from rotating, just as any wheel in a frictional medium. While rotational energy can be added to a wheel by external forces, there are no universe external forces (by definition). So it seems that the universe is not rotating, but the earth is.

 

[scm]

Nate:

Scm, I think the real argument that is being given for geocentrism is that a non-preferred referrence frame is axiomatic to general relativity, so that a disproof of geocentrism requires a disproof of GR. Most of the attempted disproofs have been in the form of showing that Newtonian mechanics applied with a rotating earth nicely agrees with observation, and a challenge for someone to use GR to duplicate those results, which I think is really impossible because the data on the mass distribution of the universe, required for a calculation, are unknown.

The axiom of a non preferred reference frame is in the end just an unproven assertion that seems to work on a local level and at the limited conditions we can test at. I am also skeptical that it holds universally but cannot prove it. As long as we are throwing out challenges to that axiom however I would just mention mine.

A universe rotating at superrelativistic speeds composed of stars would need a huge external force to keep it rotating because of the energy loss due to synchrotron radiation. Stars are fully ionized plasmas, and each charged particle, when moving at relativistic speeds in an orbit, puts out a forward directed (outward) pencil of radiation that increases with the fourth power of the relativistic mass ratio. This produces electromagnetic drag on the prarticles and slows them down unless an external force is applied. But a force external to the universe is self contradictory, so a rotating universe does not seem possible. This means that a non rotating coordinate system with its origin at the universal center of mass is the preferred frame, and any frame that is not compatible with that, like a stationary geocentric one, will not work.

Thanks Nate.
On reference frames, I thought it was that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. I also did not think that rotating frames are inertial.

 

[trth_skr]

Nate:

Hi trth_skr, I’m not sure you understood my post. I didn’t say the stars exceeded the speed of light. Relativistic speeds are those that APPROACH the speed of light. In order to generate the kinds of gravi-magnetic effects capeable of producing the observed motion of pendulums and other effects attributed to a rotating earth, the stars have been said to be well into the relativistic range, having relativistic masses so large as to change the local light speed by gravity. At such speeds they would radiate energy in a narrow cone in their travel direction which would never reach the earth but would always be away from the center of curvature (the earth). We observe this kind of radiation in relativistic electron beams in Synchrotrons and Tokamak disruptions.

The conversions of directed kinetic energy into dispersive radiant energy would slow the particles down (at least that is what always happens on earth) and eventually stop the universe from rotating, just as any wheel in a frictional medium. While rotational energy can be added to a wheel by external forces, there are no universe external forces (by definition). So it seems that the universe is not rotating, but the earth is.

Hi Nate:

Interesting points. I am going to try and get a more informed opinion, but let me share some thoughts on this topic.

First, in the scenario I am thinking, the universe is rotating. This would mean that space-time itrself is rotating. In your synchrotron experiments, you are accelerating particles to near light speed in a static (relatively flat) space-time. This leads to the synchrotron radiation.

If an object is travelling at some speed, and space-time is also travelling at that speed, then this is a different scenario than your example. What do you think?

Also, even if it is true that there is a slowing of the universe, this may not be an issue unless you presume the universe was intended to exist forever. Some scientists claim that the universe is (or will) slow down (in its expansion). Some claim that the rotation of the earth has been slowing over time. This sort of leads us into a Newton watchmaker type universe.

Another thought is there may be a mechanism to recover this energy and reuse it. If it is necassary for the universe to rotate to remain stable, the synchrotron radiation may be part of the process.

I will be travelling overseas. It may be a day or two before I get on the internet again.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

Thanks Nate.
On reference frames, I thought it was that all inertial reference frames are equivalent. I also did not think that rotating frames are inertial.

All reference frames are valid, inertial or not. The math gets harder in non-inertial frames.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[JimG]

buffalo:

So why would it be hard to believe that being the center of the universe is necessary - (anthropic coincidences.)

I have no problem with the idea that the universe–in everything from the constants of nature to the fortuitous placement of the earth–appears to have been designed so that human existence would be possible and supported.

Certainly, one can say that design is apparent. That’s the old philosophical idea–the argument from design. (The newly minted Intelligent Design theory seems to be nothing more than an updating of that idea–but it’s not science.)

The recognition of design doesn’t mean modern science must be replaced with medieval science. I can accept that God created the heavens and earth, and that he created them for Man, while still believing that the earth rotates on its axis, and while also recognizing that the big bang theory is the most scientifically credible account of the beginnings of the universe as a whole.

The simplest conclusion for Foucalt’s pendulum experiement is that the earth rotates. That the universe rotates around the earth is neither the simplest nor the most credible explanation.

I am not a physicist or a cosmologist. But to me, reading these arguments about geocentrism seems about as useful as arguing about phlogiston theory, the four humours of medieval medicine, or whether or not the four basic elements are earth, air, fire, and water.

 

[buffalo]

JimG:

I have no problem with the idea that the universe–in everything from the constants of nature to the fortuitous placement of the earth–appears to have been designed so that human existence would be possible and supported.

Certainly, one can say that design is apparent. That’s the old philosophical idea–the argument from design. (The newly minted Intelligent Design theory seems to be nothing more than an updating of that idea–but it’s not science.)

The recognition of design doesn’t mean modern science must be replaced with medieval science. I can accept that God created the heavens and earth, and that he created them for Man, while still believing that the earth rotates on its axis, and while also recognizing that the big bang theory is the most scientifically credible account of the beginnings of the universe as a whole.

The simplest conclusion for Foucalt’s pendulum experiement is that the earth rotates. That the universe rotates around the earth is neither the simplest nor the most credible explanation.

I am not a physicist or a cosmologist. But to me, reading these arguments about geocentrism seems about as useful as arguing about phlogiston theory, the four humours of medieval medicine, or whether or not the four basic elements are earth, air, fire, and water.

Does anyone know where the center of the universe is?

 

[JimG]

buffalo:

Does anyone know where the center of the universe is?

If the universe is found to be a positively curved 3-dimensional space, that is–shaped like a sphere whose surface is three-dimensional–then spatially, it really has no center. If that conception is correct, one could start out from any point on the sphere (that is, from any galaxy, star, or planet anywhere), travel in a straight line and return to one’s starting point by circumnavigating the universe.