Is Geocentrism Possible?

[thistle]

I’m pretty clueless about this topic as I’m not very scientific but the question seems to be does the earth orbit the sun or does the universe orbit the earth. Is that right?
If the latter was possible or likely why would all, or at least the vast majority of the scientific community, say that the earth orbits the sun? They must have a good reason for stating that. I’m 57 and until these forums I had never even heard of this other theory.

 

[trth_skr]

thistle:

I’m pretty clueless about this topic as I’m not very scientific but the question seems to be does the earth orbit the sun or does the universe orbit the earth. Is that right?
If the latter was possible or likely why would all, or at least the vast majority of the scientific community, say that the earth orbits the sun? They must have a good reason for stating that. I’m 57 and until these forums I had never even heard of this other theory.

That is a fair question. It is from that perspective that I started.

Go back to post #1 and read through the three part series (plus supplement), Geocentrism 101, which I have linked. You may enjoy reading this shorter article:

Science and Church

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[steveandersen]

I’m not going to respect myself in the morning….but here goes

trth_skr:

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.

We have a pretty good model for planetary formation and the recent discovery of extra solar planets will no doubt refine that.

but in any event your own model allows for all other planets to revolve around thier own star. If you are trying to make a case for terrestrial exceptionalism on theological grounds then go ahead….I see no reason to bring in GTR.

trth_skr:

The relative movements are the same. We do not know what the absolute motions are. What are we using for our absolute reference?

The earth as per your model

trth_skr:

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.

That makes absolutely no sense. In your model the moon and sun have to rotate the earth at the same rate. Even conceding minor speed variations or retrograde movements (don’t get me started on the one) the net effect is that the sun and moon will always occupy the same position relative to each other. They have to if they are each to go around a stationary earth in a day.

Now if you want to posit a rotating (but non revolving) earth with a moon that revolves around it once a month that is a different matter. That I could agree with based on GTR
plus it would slow the sun and the moon down to their observed values and eliminate all the velocity and mechanical property concerns

trth_skr:

Mr. Ellis is a cosmologist. If you want to drop names, he has worked with Stephen Hawking. The phases of the moon are observations.

Then have him show me a model for two objects rotating around a common point at the same rate that displays the observed changes in lighting on the moon.

trth_skr:

The one in the example. Go back to Part II of Geocentrism 101. There is a link to the original article.

Yeah, I read it I just didn’t believe my eyes
The very fact that distance and time are relative is the very reason for c to be constant, not a reason to doubt it.

The example is not applicable to the model in question. You have chosen a stationary earth as the frame of reference. Therefore assigning velocities to the sun and the moon relative to the earth is perfectly correct.

trth_skr:

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

So you’re saying that other forces will prevent us from achieving escape velocity? (even though we have done it many times)
What will they be? Where will they come from?

 

[trth_skr]

steveandersen:

…
That makes absolutely no sense. In your model the moon and sun have to rotate the earth at the same rate. Even conceding minor speed variations or retrograde movements (don’t get me started on the one) the net effect is that the sun and moon will always occupy the same position relative to each other. They have to if they are each to go around a stationary earth in a day.

No, not true. relative to the earth, the moon leads, and the sun lags.

steveandersen:

Then have him show me a model for two objects rotating around a common point at the same rate that displays the observed changes in lighting on the moon.

Te sun lags,the moon leads. This is a geocentric observation (i.e., we observe this from fixed positions on earth).

steveandersen:

Yeah, I read it I just didn’t believe my eyes
The very fact that distance and time are relative is the very reason for c to be constant, not a reason to doubt it.

The issue is not constant “c”. Aside from the fact that this is only an assumption in GR, it is not an issue. In the example, as in a geocentric universe, there is no local violation of c required for the model to work. This is all that counts. Also, in regions of space which can be treated as STR, constant “c” would apply.

steveandersen:

So you’re saying that other forces will prevent us from achieving escape velocity? (even though we have done it many times)
What will they be? Where will they come from?

No, I did not say (or mean) that.

Whatever occurs in a “heliocentric” universe, will have to occur in a geocentric one if GTR is correct. The forces we experience will exist in both cases; though they may be manifested in different ways.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[PhilVaz]

I voted definitely disproved by science, and you can’t spell definitely and you don’t understand yet that technically nothing is “proved” by science.

I have studied the age of the earth and evolution to some extent, and those are “proved” to the same degree as the earth’s speed and rotation. The earth moves, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and common descent is “virtually certain” as it says in the International Theological Commission statement endorsed by Cardinal Ratzinger / Benedict XVI.

Now you need to create a new poll on whether science has definitely “proved” the earth is not hollow or that the earth is not flat.

Phil P

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

I voted definitely disproved by science, and you can’t spell definitely and you don’t understand yet that technically nothing is “proved” by science.

If you read the text, I use the term “demonstrated”. I used “proved” to shorten the poll. Yes, I did misspell definitely (thought it did not look right).

I think I was fair in setting up the poll.

Mark:

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?

PhilVaz:

Now you need to create a new poll on whether science has definitely “proved” the earth is not hollow or that the earth is not flat.

Phil P

I’ll leave that up to you. I am interested in isssues he Church has spoken on, and are ambiguous from the perspective of science. These are not.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[PhilVaz]

truthseek << I am interested in issues the Church has spoken on, and are ambiguous from the perspective of science. These are not. >>

Ah ha, so the earth could be flat and hollow after all. We need another two polls. At least you could become obsessed about a current public “controversy” like evolution or “intelligent design” and spend your time studying those.

Phil P

 

[thistle]

trth_skr:

That is a fair question. It is from that perspective that I started.

Go back to post #1 and read through the three part series (plus supplement), Geocentrism 101, which I have linked. You may enjoy reading this shorter article:

Science and Church

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

I think I’ll have a glass of wine and just sit back and enjoy the debate as this subject is over my head. Having read the article I’m even more confused.
It seems we can’t prove the earth orbits the sun, and we can’t prove that the universe orbits the earth, and now I find we can’t prove where the centre of the universe is. In all of this I still don’t know what the Church’s position is!!

 

[PhilVaz]

For its worth I printed out all Mark’s articles. Problem is there isn’t any “controversy” on this subject so there are few if any popular books addressing the topic. You spend a lot of time on past statements of Popes which in my view are irrelevant to the science. You should address all the scientific disproofs of geocentrism in detail in your articles:

(1) Satellites are launched to the east
(2) Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible
(3) Inertial frames of reference have no unresolved forces
(4) The earth has obvious unresolved forces
(5) Foucault’s pendulum
(6) Weather systems
(7) Oblate earth
(8) Newtonian mechanics
(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
(12) Rotation of solar system about galactic centre and other proper motions
(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion
(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury
(15) Frame dragging around the rotating earth (just empirically demonstrated)

From a Dec 2004 / Jan 2005 thread, list by HECD

Another discussion of that same list

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

trth_skr:

No, not true. relative to the earth, the moon leads, and the sun lags…

how so? to have a lead/lag situation the bodies would either
(a) move at different speeds which is impossible since by observation they cross the sky once a day (and the faster one would overtake the slower one thus they would change their lead lag position constantly) or
(b) maintain a fixed separation distance in the sky which also doesn’t satisfy observations.

the problem with your theory is that for it to work the frame of reference would have to be the center of the earth and not a point on the surface on which all our observations are based. If you were in the center then the surface would move around you once a day, all observations would be satisfied, and the moon and sun wouldn’t have to do physically impossible things.

Alternatively an individual on the surface could be the reference point and then the center of the planet would revolve around him…which individual would you like to chose?

But a stationary earth coupled with observations from a point not collocated with the origin (as you are proposing) would not be consistent with observation .

 

[Magicsilence]

Is there any way to test it for sure?

And why dont we do that?

 

[MrS]

PhilVaz:

truthseek << I am interested in issues the Church has spoken on, and are ambiguous from the perspective of science. These are not. >>

Ah ha, so the earth could be flat and hollow after all. We need another two polls. At least you could become obsessed about a current public “controversy” like evolution or “intelligent design” and spend your time studying those.

Phil P

you have added little or nothing to this discussion. Perhaps someone will send you a box of chocolate covered charity for Christmas.

 

[MrS]

thistle:

I think I’ll have a glass of wine and just sit back and enjoy the debate as this subject is over my head. Having read the article I’m even more confused.
It seems we can’t prove the earth orbits the sun, and we can’t prove that the universe orbits the earth, and now I find we can’t prove where the centre of the universe is. In all of this I still don’t know what the Church’s position is!!

The Church is centered in Rome, and we usually revolve around it.

However, some astroid bishops might take off on their own.

 

[trth_skr]

PhilVaz:

For its worth I printed out all Mark’s articles. Problem is there isn’t any “controversy” on this subject so there are few if any popular books addressing the topic.

Since there are no popular books on the subject, does that make it untrue?

PhilVaz:

You spend a lot of time on past statements of Popes which in my view are irrelevant to the science.

Is science above God and His Church?

PhilVaz:

You should address all the scientific disproofs of geocentrism in detail in your articles:

(1) Satellites are launched to the east
(2) Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible
(3) Inertial frames of reference have no unresolved forces
(4) The earth has obvious unresolved forces
(5) Foucault’s pendulum
(6) Weather systems
(7) Oblate earth
(8) Newtonian mechanics
(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
(12) Rotation of solar system about galactic centre and other proper motions
(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion
(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury
(15) Frame dragging around the rotating earth (just empirically demonstrated)
…

None of those are disproofs.

Some can be claimed demonstrations, but can also be demonstrations of a rotating universe. I do cover some of those in my articles. Yoiu have printed them, now read them.

Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett will explain all that and more in their upcoming book, Galileo was Wrong.

(1) Satellites are launched to the east
(2) Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible

The universe moves in the opposing direction. Same relative motion. Requires the same launch tactics. See this thread where I disprove Gary Hoge’s satellite arguments:

The best evidence against geocentrism

You may take a look at this one, too, where Marty Rothwell takes over at Gary’s request:

Geocentricity 101

(3) Inertial frames of reference have no unresolved forces
(4) The earth has obvious unresolved forces

The forces are resolved in general relativity. The forces are only “unresolved” in Newtonian mechanics, which requires an absolute space.

(5) Foucault’s pendulum
(6) Weather systems
(7) Oblate earth

All due to a rotating universe. general relativity accounts for these forces as coming from the distant rotating masses.

(8) Newtonian mechanics

No proof of anything. General relativity reduces to almost Newtonian mechanics in non-curved space. Rotating universes need to be treated in general relativity.

(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

Result of precession of universe.

(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

Says who? See Part II of Geocentricity 101.

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

Rotation is allowed in geocentrism, too.

(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion

The sun revolves with the universe around the earth. The planets (not including earth) orbit the sun. The double rotation explains the retrograde motion.

(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury

general relativity claims to solve this. General relativity also permits a geocentric reference frame. No issue here. In any case, as I said above, the planets still orbit the sun, so the same explanations can apply for either case.

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

“Frame dragging” and related forces are part of the proof for geocentrism. See part II, especially.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

steveandersen:

how so? to have a lead/lag situation the bodies would either
(a) move at different speeds which is impossible since by observation they cross the sky once a day (and the faster one would overtake the slower one thus they would change their lead lag position constantly) or
(b) maintain a fixed separation distance in the sky which also doesn’t satisfy observations.

the problem with your theory is that for it to work the frame of reference would have to be the center of the earth and not a point on the surface on which all our observations are based. If you were in the center then the surface would move around you once a day, all observations would be satisfied, and the moon and sun wouldn’t have to do physically impossible things.

Alternatively an individual on the surface could be the reference point and then the center of the planet would revolve around him…which individual would you like to chose?

But a stationary earth coupled with observations from a point not collocated with the origin (as you are proposing) would not be consistent with observation .

The universe stabilizes its center by rotating. The earth is at he center. The earth is infintesimally small relative to the universe.

All observations of the sun and moons motion (until last century) were from fixed earth positions. The motions we observe from a fixed earth are consistent with heliocentric theory or geocentric theory.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Magicsilence:

Is there any way to test it for sure?

And why dont we do that?

There is no test, because we know of no fixed point in space to compare to (unless we trust God and realize the earth is fixed). From a scientific perspective (i.e., all knowledge comes from naturalistic observation only) everything is potentially in motion.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[steveandersen]

trth_skr:

The universe stabilizes its center by rotating. The earth is at he center. The earth is infintesimally small relative to the universe.

You’re missing the point literally. The origin has to be a point
It doesn’t matter how small the earth is compared to the universe since your observations include objects much smaller and closer so that the distance between the origin and the point of observation becomes significant e.g. the radius of the earth is 3% of the distance to the moon
There is a substantial amount of parallax that can’t be ignored

trth_skr:

All observations of the sun and moons motion (until last century) were from fixed earth positions. The motions we observe from a fixed earth are consistent with heliocentric theory or geocentric theory.

Mark

If you want your origin to be the point of observation on the surface (like the spinning person in your link) then the center of the earth has to revolve around it. It HAS to to account for observed motion

Otherwise if the origin is the center of the earth than the surface revolves around it.
Either one is a valid reference frame but you can’t use parts of both

No amount of hand waving or evoking GTR is going to work unless all of the observations are accounted for

I’m sure Mr Ellis would agree

 

[trth_skr]

steveandersen:

You’re missing the point literally. The origin has to be a point
It doesn’t matter how small the earth is compared to the universe since your observations include objects much smaller and closer so that the distance between the origin and the point of observation becomes significant e.g. the radius of the earth is 3% of the distance to the moon
There is a substantial amount of parallax that can’t be ignored

If you want your origin to be the point of observation on the surface (like the spinning person in your link) then the center of the earth has to revolve around it. It HAS to to account for observed motion

Otherwise if the origin is the center of the earth than the surface revolves around it.
Either one is a valid reference frame but you can’t use parts of both

No amount of hand waving or evoking GTR is going to work unless all of the observations are accounted for

I’m sure Mr Ellis would agree

Treat the earth as a solid body. Fix the central point. The earth is fixed.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[steveandersen]

trth_skr:

Treat the earth as a solid body. Fix the central point. The earth is fixed.

Mark

Sure, you can fix the center of the earth (or any other point) as your reference but you can’t treat the earth as a point because we’re back to the problem of the phases of the moon.

Using the earth as a point may be fine for very distant objects (heck, at the right scale using the solar system or the galaxy as a whole as a point may be fine) but as I said before, that assumption fails when the size of the object becomes a significant fraction of the distances you are measuring. the Earth is not a point…it has volume

If the center of the earth is the reference point then I’m revolving around it and you and I are on parallel paths. If I’m my own reference point then the center of the earth (or more accurately the center of mass between me and the earth, which is effectively the same) is revolving around me and you are moving in some elliptical path (at a constant distance) with respect to me. So how can the earth as a whole be considered to be stationary and still be consistent with observations?

We don’t have that many degrees of freedom

 

[trth_skr]

steveandersen:

Sure, you can fix the center of the earth (or any other point) as your reference but you can’t treat the earth as a point because we’re back to the problem of the phases of the moon.

Using the earth as a point may be fine for very distant objects (heck, at the right scale using the solar system or the galaxy as a whole as a point may be fine) but as I said before, that assumption fails when the size of the object becomes a significant fraction of the distances you are measuring. the Earth is not a point…it has volume

If the center of the earth is the reference point then I’m revolving around it and you and I are on parallel paths. If I’m my own reference point then the center of the earth (or more accurately the center of mass between me and the earth, which is effectively the same) is revolving around me and you are moving in some elliptical path (at a constant distance) with respect to me. So how can the earth as a whole be considered to be stationary and still be consistent with observations?

We don’t have that many degrees of freedom

The earth is a solid body. It is fixed at the center. I do not see an issue.

mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com