Is Geocentrism Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trth_skr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

trth_skr

Guest
Science has not demonstrated that the earth moves (rotates or translates) in a manner distinguishable from a counter movement of the universe. The Church has made declarations that the earth does not translate or rotate and the sun does move [around the earth].

Science is strongly of the opinion that the earth does move (though it cannot demonstrate that). The Church at this time is not requiring the faithful to reject modern science’s opinion.

What do you think about the truth of the matter?

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Science has not demonstrated that the earth moves (rotates or translates) in a manner distinguishable from a counter movement of the universe. The Church has made declarations that the earth does not translate or rotate and the sun does move [around the earth].

Science is strongly of the opinion that the earth does move (though it cannot demonstrate that). The Church at this tiem is not requiring the faithful to reject modern science’s opinion.

What do you think about the truth of the matter?

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
Why can’t science demonstrate what revolves around what?
 
while visual observations can not differentiate between the sun revolving around the earth or the earth rotating on its axis there is a host of other measurable data that can clearly make the distinction
since geocentrism is not supported by the preponderance of the evidence an there are theories that are supported by more evidence, the geocentrism must be rejected
 
well…

(1) we’ve had this discussion before concerning the fact that in an orbital system, the bodies revolve around their center of mass and that in the earth-sun system the center of mass is pretty close to the center of the sun.
you would state (and quite correctly since general relativity allows for no one reference frame to have precedence over any other) that the earth is standing still and the sun is just going through an extra gyration. The problem with that of course is that your model (if I’m understanding it correctly) is that in addition to violating the principal of parsimony it puts the sun going around the earth and the rest of the planets following Keplerian motion around the sun (and that other star systems and galaxies revolve around their own centers of mass which then in turn revolve are the earth). While general relativity allows for any frame of reference it doesn’t allow for an arbitrary singular exemption from the laws of motion (perhaps if you revised your theory to say that the earth-sun center of mass revolves around the earth you’d be on less shaky ground

(2) planetary formation theories call for the planets to form from an accretion disk orbiting the proto star. Does you model provide an alternate model for planetary formation? Wouldn’t it require a separate model for the earth than for the other planets?

(3) if the earth was stationary (no rotation) it would be closer to a sphere. True there would still be a equatorial bulge due to tidal effects but the earth also bulges in the middle due to its rotation

(4) the rotation of the earth is slowing in measurably. You could say that everything else is slowing down but there is no mechanism to support that. When the earth becomes tidal locked with the sun are you going to say that the sun has stopped orbiting? The energy required to stop that much mass must come from somewhere. Your model would vastly change the rate of internal heating of the earth from tidal forces.

and more prosaically (5) If the sun revolves around the earth once a day and the moon revolves around the earth once a day…please explain the phases of the moon. Why does the direction of lighting change in a monthly cycle?
 
Oh and besides
Given gravitational laws that force the earth exerts on the sun is equal to the force the sun; therefore the acceleration exerted on the sun is minuscule because of the huge mass difference. That resultant acceleration is not large enough to hold the sun in a orbit of R=93M miles at a rotational rate of 1 per day. :eek:

and (if my math isn’t too sloppy) for the sun to maintain that orbit it would be moving at about 3%c relative to earth :eek:
we would be able to measure that large a Doppler shift. And different parts of the earth would be receiving more red or blue light.
 
Mark, if I recall correctly, one of the examples used on your website to show the relativity of frames of reference is that of a person who does a spin while in his room. The room and everything else appears to spin around that person. In that case, the perceived velocity of, say, the moon, would easily exceed the speed of light.

The example of an ice skater spinning might also be used. One could view it as the skater spinning, or the arena (and universe) spinning around the motionless skater.

But the perspectives are not equivalent. Can one say that it makes no difference whether one views the skater as spinning or the arena as spinning, since it is merely a difference of the frame of reference? (All frames of reference being created equal.)

I don’t think so. The skater experiences real physical effects; those in the arena do not. The person spinning in his room experiences real physical effects; the moon does not.

If all motion were simply relative, there would be no way for the time dilatation and mass effects of acceleration to be observed. But they have been observed, and measured.
 
40.png
JimG:
…In that case, the perceived velocity of, say, the moon, would easily exceed the speed of light…
Click to expand...
well no the velocity of the moon would be about 18 miles/sec (if I’m doing it right)
far less than c but still more than twice the escape velocity :eek:
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well…

(1) we’ve had this discussion before concerning the fact that in an orbital system, the bodies revolve around their center of mass and that in the earth-sun system the center of mass is pretty close to the center of the sun.
you would state (and quite correctly since general relativity allows for no one reference frame to have precedence over any other) that the earth is standing still and the sun is just going through an extra gyration. The problem with that of course is that your model (if I’m understanding it correctly) is that in addition to violating the principal of parsimony it puts the sun going around the earth and the rest of the planets following Keplerian motion around the sun (and that other star systems and galaxies revolve around their own centers of mass which then in turn revolve are the earth). While general relativity allows for any frame of reference it doesn’t allow for an arbitrary singular exemption from the laws of motion (perhaps if you revised your theory to say that the earth-sun center of mass revolves around the earth you’d be on less shaky ground
Click to expand...
You are ignoring the rest of the universe in this argument.

What causes inertia? According to Mach and Einstein, the rest of the universe acting on a mass on earth causes the resistance to the masses movement. If the rest of the universe is acting on a mass on earth, you cannot ignore the rest of the universe when you start talking about the solar system. The solar system is not isolated from the rest of the universe.

Read Parts I and (especially) II again.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well…

(2) planetary formation theories call for the planets to form from an accretion disk orbiting the proto star. Does you model provide an alternate model for planetary formation? Wouldn’t it require a separate model for the earth than for the other planets?
Click to expand...
I do not know how the earth or planets were formed. According to the time sequence of Genesis, the earth was formed first than the sun and moon, etc. added later.

I do not feel the need to have a naturalistic cosmogony.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well…

…
(3) if the earth was stationary (no rotation) it would be closer to a sphere. True there would still be a equatorial bulge due to tidal effects but the earth also bulges in the middle due to its rotation
Click to expand...
See Part III of Geocentrism 101. Relativity would say that any force caused by a rotating earth would also have an anaolgous component in the geostaionary case. The analogous force would be related to the rotating universe.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well…

(4) the rotation of the earth is slowing in measurably. You could say that everything else is slowing down but there is no mechanism to support that. When the earth becomes tidal locked with the sun are you going to say that the sun has stopped orbiting? The energy required to stop that much mass must come from somewhere. Your model would vastly change the rate of internal heating of the earth from tidal forces.
Click to expand...
The universe could be slowing due to dissipation of energy from all the rotational motions (possibly in the aether). Also an expanding universe could cause the universal rotation speed to slow. There may be other explanations.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
steveandersen:
(5) If the sun revolves around the earth once a day and the moon revolves around the earth once a day…please explain the phases of the moon. Why does the direction of lighting change in a monthly cycle?
Click to expand...
Clearly there is a relative motion between the moon and earth nd sun and earth. The phases of the moon in hte geocentric system are caused by the same relative motions thsat cause them in the heliocentric system. Remeber what George Ellis said:

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that cou**ld explain the observations,…For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.

W. Wayt Gibbs, “Profile: George F. R. Ellis,” Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

"
 
40.png
JimG:
Mark, if I recall correctly, one of the examples used on your website to show the relativity of frames of reference is that of a person who does a spin while in his room. The room and everything else appears to spin around that person. In that case, the perceived velocity of, say, the moon, would easily exceed the speed of light.

The example of an ice skater spinning might also be used. One could view it as the skater spinning, or the arena (and universe) spinning around the motionless skater.

But the perspectives are not equivalent. Can one say that it makes no difference whether one views the skater as spinning or the arena as spinning, since it is merely a difference of the frame of reference? (All frames of reference being created equal.)

I don’t think so. The skater experiences real physical effects; those in the arena do not. The person spinning in his room experiences real physical effects; the moon does not.

If all motion were simply relative, there would be no way for the time dilatation and mass effects of acceleration to be observed. But they have been observed, and measured.
Click to expand...
This example was only used to show that there was no issue with violation of light speed in general relativity between the reference frame and other objects.

I used the Rosser and Gron & Eriksen examples to discuss forces.

The ice rink spinning would not involve any substantial gravitational forces, so the example is one of kinematic motion, only.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well no the velocity of the moon would be about 18 miles/sec (if I’m doing it right)
far less than c but still more than twice the escape velocity :eek:
Click to expand...
You are not taking into account the rate of rotation of the spinning person, which multiplies the velocity. This example was created by a competent relativist.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
I do not feel the need to have a naturalistic cosmogony.
Click to expand...
This pretty much sums up the main reason for even entertaining geocentrism.
 
40.png
trth_skr:
…I do not feel the need to have a naturalistic cosmogony…
Click to expand...
well if you mind is made up
(a) why ask the question in the first place?
(b) why go through all the trouble of invoking GTR if you’re just going to discount naturalistic explanations? GTR is just as naturalistic.
40.png
trth_skr:
Clearly there is a relative motion between the moon and earth nd sun and earth. The phases of the moon in hte geocentric system are caused by the same relative motions thsat cause them in the heliocentric system.
Click to expand...
how can they be the same if the movements are profoundly different? In your model the moon and sun must rotate the earth at the same rate (once per day) even assuming some funky retrograde motion to simulate the change rising and setting times of the moon, the moon would have to go through all phases each and every day or not change at all.
40.png
trth_skr:
Remeber what George Ellis said:
Click to expand...
while what Mr. Ellis (whom ever he is) says may be true with regards to GTR, that theory does not exist in a vacuum. (I mean that figuratively of course) 😉
40.png
trth_skr:
You are not taking into account the rate of rotation of the spinning person, which multiplies the velocity…
Click to expand...
what spinning person?

we know the escape velocity of the earth quite well. Newton closely approximated it hundreds of years ago and we use it every time we launch a spacecraft (something we do with considerable frequency and accuracy)

In your model the moon orbits the earth once a day. We know the distance to the moon (we’ve been there) so the velocity required by your model is easy to figure out. It exceeds the escape velocity. Therefore, while it may look like the moon goes around a stationary earth once a day it can’t

Similarly the rate at which the sun would have to move in you model is fairly easy to calculate. If we were to strictly adhere to your logic I suppose we would have to use the escape velocity for the earth but even if we’re generous and use the (very much) larger value for the escape velocity from the sun, the required orbital speed of the sun in your model would exceed it by a factor of 10. At that speed the sun would just wiz on by the earth, not orbit it.

So like I said, geocentrism may satisfy certain visual observations just fine but unless it can conform with other data it must be rejected.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
well if you mind is made up
(a) why ask the question in the first place?
(b) why go through all the trouble of invoking GTR if you’re just going to discount naturalistic explanations? GTR is just as naturalistic.
Click to expand...
GTR deals with things as they are. It is not necassary to understand their origin to apply it. I am saying it is not important to know the origin of planets, unless we know for certain that a certain mechanism occured and we can show that it invalidates another theory.
40.png
steveandersen:
how can they be the same if the movements are profoundly different? In your model the moon and sun must rotate the earth at the same rate (once per day) even assuming some funky retrograde motion to simulate the change rising and setting times of the moon, the moon would have to go through all phases each and every day or not change at all.
Click to expand...
The relative movements are the same. We do not know what the absolute motions are. What are we using for our absolute reference? According to your theory, it does not exist. Only geocentrism provides an absolute reference (the earth).

The moon rotates with the entire universe once a day, plus has a slight additional velocity causing the phases.
40.png
steveandersen:
while what Mr. Ellis (whom ever he is) says may be true with regards to GTR, that theory does not exist in a vacuum. (I mean that figuratively of course) 😉
Click to expand...
Mr. Ellis is a cosmologist. If you want to drop names, he has worked with Stephen Hawking. The phases of the moon are observations.
40.png
steveandersen:
what spinning person?
Click to expand...
The one in the example. Go back to Part II of Geocentrism 101. There is a link to the original article.
40.png
steveandersen:
we know the escape velocity of the earth quite well. Newton closely approximated it hundreds of years ago and we use it every time we launch a spacecraft (something we do with considerable frequency and accuracy)

In your model the moon orbits the earth once a day. We know the distance to the moon (we’ve been there) so the velocity required by your model is easy to figure out. It exceeds the escape velocity. Therefore, while it may look like the moon goes around a stationary earth once a day it can’t

Similarly the rate at which the sun would have to move in you model is fairly easy to calculate. If we were to strictly adhere to your logic I suppose we would have to use the escape velocity for the earth but even if we’re generous and use the (very much) larger value for the escape velocity from the sun, the required orbital speed of the sun in your model would exceed it by a factor of 10. At that speed the sun would just wiz on by the earth, not orbit it.

So like I said, geocentrism may satisfy certain visual observations just fine but unless it can conform with other data it must be rejected.
Click to expand...
In the case of GR, other forces WILL manifest themselves to balance out the situation (else GTR is false). Newton’s approximation only works in Newtonian absolute space (which GTR dispensed with).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top