They can under some circumstances (i.e., private opinions).
I will not argue that that appears to be the situation at this time. The only groups who really have an intrest in this are religous, especially Christian, and then especially Catholic.
Without reading all the posts I saw this and noticed the reference to Galileo and I thought I would add a bit of interesting info to the discussion. Most people do not realize that Galileo was not put on trial because he used the heliocentric model because if you read the works of the Jesuits, in particular St. Robert Belermine, they state that they had been using the heliocentric model for many years before Galileo popularized the notion. Rather, the charges against him were primarily two - that he was teaching something to be absolute while using inductive reasoning which is an error and that he was possibly teaching his model as a religion. These were the concerns of the Holy Office at the time and this is why he was brought to trial. This is well documented in the trial records and the corospondence between Galileo, the Pope and Robert Belermine (all of whom were friends).
This may have been a factor in their thinknig, but here is the condemnation of Galileo (from my blog):
Correct, if you read carefully (past archaic language) it is an issue of logical rectitude and religious fidelity. Two very serious issues that cannot be taken lightly.
Thank God the cavalry came
logial rectitude with regards to methodology and lack of evidence (which has not changed).
Smoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooch!Thank God the cavalry came
I’m not a physists, just an engineer with an opinion and a keyboard
So…… Alec, I’m curious…did I say anything that was right?
Just curious
Smoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooch!
Mark
I don’t know whether to feel loved or violated steveandersen said:
Merry Christmas, Mark
I didn’t need to smear you Mark, you did that perfectly for yourself.hecd2:
Clearly this has nothing to do with geocentrism, but it is an easy way to smear me.
Good for them. I see that Bouw (note spelling) teaches Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel at the Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, OH. But who are Bennett (note spelling) and Bouw to you or me?
A couple? A COUPLE? Here are some that are egregious and fundamental. You claimed that:
Here we go again. Have you even the faintest idea what the quadrupole (note spelling) moment of the CMB is? I have never specifically discussed the quadrupole moment of the anisotropy in the CMB with you. Saying that the amplitude and the spatial frequency of the CMB temperature anisotropy are ‘different anisotropies’ shows a real desert of basic understanding.
Sighh!!! It’s not a philosophy.GR’s basic postulate is that space is not absolute. You can’t then logically use GR to talk about any-centrism. It’s a logical, not a philosophical point.
Stationary with respct to what?
Yes that one. Geocentrism can’t be true in Newtonian mechanics and it’s meaningless in GR. That one.
Oh, I see - geocentrism doesn’t depend on GR after all.
So Bob will demonstrate the truth of geocentrism based on observations. Goodoh, that should be entertaining. Let me guess - quantised redshift, though shown by modern galaxy surveys to be hooey, will play a big part. Bob’s book will be utterly ignored by physicists and cosmologists. The only effect it will have will be to cause people to ridicule Catholics and the Faith. Which is tragic and unnecessary, no?
You talked about speaking from authority, and mentioned your PhD. Gerardus Buow does have a PhD, as does Dr. Bennett (In relativity I believe). You claim to be a “practcing physicist”, but you did not state in what field.
I would say it is neither evidence for or against, in and of itself.
I was under the assumption that redshift was involved in the deconvolution, I may have been wrong.
I do understand the difference between the two.
I made a general statement about grav. lensing, as a a distant possibility of something, I recall. I have not studied the Sacs-Wolfe effect.
If the universe is much smaller, this may be so. This is where I thought redshift may have ben used to support the visible edge. This point goes to the point above, already made.
We already settled that. I misspoke, and gave you the correct reference regarding an aether composed of Planck particles. You did not accept it, because it was not peer reviewed.
Goes to the above point.
Not sure what you are talking about.
In order to support the expanding universe , 96% of the matter needs to be “found”. Dark matter and Energy are assumed to be this missing mass.
This is required for the inflationary phase of the big bang.
Thirring modeled a rotating shell, which can be interpreted as a rotating universe, and was by Physicists such as Max, Born. Thirring did note that forces analogous to the Coriolis ands Centrifigal forces arose in the interior of the shell. You are misrepresenting me.
Maybe at some technical level. We both understand that it allows us to choose any reference frame.
I thought we were confusing the two. Maybe I was. Again, I was talking about what I presumed were red / blue shifted quadrapoles (admittedly I may have been wrong), while you were referring to the temperature anisotropy. I think this is where the confusion came in.
We have your giant’s shoulders to stand on. Also, the intricate details of the CMB do not really play into what I nor Robert have presented. That was more of a side discussion between you and I.
First of all, logic is philosophy. No one is claiming that space is absolute in GR, you are attributing it to me (and Robert by extension).
The rest of the universe. Just like the case of a fixed earth reference frame.
I disagree. Einstein himself says that the difference between helio and geocentrism is meaningless, but if at one point you are looking at one model or the other, you can attribute the forces which result from the particular formulation as the ones that describe the state of the universe under that formulation.
Read my blog. Mnauy are at least neutral to both (all) possible systems.
You jump to conclusions pretty quickly, don’t you.
You will have to read the book. If you request it, I am sure Robert will sign it for you.
), no one from the negative view has presented a complete rebuttal.PhilVaz said:
Mark,