- Jun 18, 2005
- Reaction score
- Oceanside, California
Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.LBK said:Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?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.stanley123 said: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.Opus118 said: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.stanley123 said: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.Opus118 said:
I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?