Heliocentrism/Geocentrism Issue

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
LBK said:
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
biro said:
Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 
As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.
I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.
Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  ;)
Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
LBK said:
Opus118 said:
I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.
Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  ;)
Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.
Armenia? That doesn't sound right. IIRC it's Elbonia.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 
If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 
If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.
Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
stanley123 said:
Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
stanley123 said:
Opus118 said:
stanley123 said:
Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).
You reject it.

 
Top