Geocentrism

[vacuum]

Does Geocentrism make any specific claims, other than the Earth being a stationary center of the universe, that disagrees with modern science?

For example, is the Sun considered thousands of times larger than Earth? Are the distances and sizes of stars disagreed with? Are stars assumed to be like our sun? Do planets potentially orbit stars? Do planets, for example Jupiter, have moons which orbit around them?

[JohnQPublic]

Does Geocentrism make any specific claims, other than the Earth being a stationary center of the universe, that disagrees with modern science?

For example, is the Sun considered thousands of times larger than Earth? Are the distances and sizes of stars disagreed with? Are stars assumed to be like our sun? Do planets potentially orbit stars? Do planets, for example Jupiter, have moons which orbit around them?

vacuum- you really should get the book I linked (Galileo Was Wrong). In synopsis, we could accept many of the distances sizes, etc., and have a viable theory. Especially close objects, like the sun, stars within measurable distance by parallax, etc., are somewhat indisputable. Once you start talking about using redshift as a measure of the size of the universe, the assumptions start piling on. The universe could conceivably be much (much, much, much...) smaller than the imagined billions of light years. In fact Max Tegmark and others considered a much smaller universe when they discovered the cosmic background was aligned to the ecliptic (you do not hear about that on NOVA do you? The cmb alignment is the cause of much consternation behind the scenes), but rejected it in favor of infinite universes (go figure).

In the neo-Tychonian system, the planets (earth not included) orbit the sun with parabolic (Keplerian) orbits. The planets and sun are a local system. The sun moves with the universe around the universe's center, which is also where the earth is- trapped by the power of the universe in the center. The neo-Tychonian is an extension of Tycho Brahe's alternative to Copernicus' heliocentric system.

Many geocentrists actually prefer an aether based system, but you should read the book to understand that one. In this case, the aether provides much of the needed forces, gravitational effect, etc.

[singular_me]

Many geocentrists actually prefer an aether based system, but you should read the book to understand that one. In this case, the aether provides much of the needed forces, gravitational effect, etc.

dont know if you fully agree with the aether explanation but it surely is my very point o view... glad to see it mention by you...

[Blink]

Here's a slick little app that shows where the planets are at any given time: http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

Hey, wheres Nibiru? This map sucks............ lol.

[JohnQPublic]

dont know if you fully agree with the aether explanation but it surely is my very point o view... glad to see it mention by you...

On one hand, modern science dismisses it. On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, they need to have a substance for space. For the standard model, the need dark matter and dark energy. For galaxy rotation curves, they need dark matter. So, no one has really gotten away from aether.

[singular_me]

On one hand, modern science dismisses it. On the other hand, in quantum mechanics, they need to have a substance for space. For the standard model, they need dark matter and dark energy. For galaxy rotation curves, they need dark matter. So, no one has really gotten away from aether.

Exactly. The academy, as we know it, has always been highly deceptive... but I read several month ago that even Einstein was taking it into account in secret but more or less denying it in public. Unfortunately my thread about it in the philosophy forum was unsuccessful, maybe didnt I formulated it well. Acknowledging the importance of dark energy will have to be faced at some point.

[JohnQPublic]

Exactly. The academy, as we know it, has always been highly deceptive... but I read several month ago that even Einstein was taking it into account in secret but more or less denying it in public. Unfortunately my thread about it in the philosophy forum was unsuccessful, maybe didnt I formulated it well. Acknowledging the importance of dark energy will have to be faced at some point.

Actually, Einstein did say:

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no
longer allowed to speak about the ether in
physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss
the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a
medium filling all space and to assume that
the electromagnetic fields (and matter as
well) are its states…once again “empty”
space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically
empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity. One can thus say that the
ether is resurrected in the general theory of
relativity….Since in the new theory, metric
facts can no longer be separated from “true”
physical facts, the concepts of “space” and
“ether” merge together."

Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der
Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,”
Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro,
Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2.

(this is from Galileo Was Wrong)

Also Einstein is quoted as saying,

"According to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in
such space there would not only be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in
Sidelights on Relativity, 1983 (originally published 1921), p. 30, cited in De Labore
Solis, p. 65.

[Santa]

The universe could conceivably be much (much, much, much...) smaller than the imagined billions of light years. In fact Max Tegmark and others considered a much smaller universe when they discovered the cosmic background was aligned to the ecliptic (you do not hear about that on NOVA do you? The cmb alignment is the cause of much consternation behind the scenes), but rejected it in favor of infinite universes (go figure).

I have a philosophical difficulty with the notion of a small or smaller universe myself.

A small universe implies a universe that has an end. A boundary. Which implies there's something outside the universe that the universe resides within, which solves nothing philosophically.
To solve that problem, we either have an expanding universe, multiple universes or some sort of holographic universe.

Isn't that the gist of why it's so universally dismissed?

Unless that's the point. That something much bigger resides outside this little onion called a universe. Perhaps something like God?

[singular_me]

oohh, tnx for posting this...

edit: here is what I read... not saying that I believe this article to be entirely true, but also taking into account the Academia's position which has track records of remaining blurred about the topic.

It would take Einstein 15 years before he addressed this glaring misconception but the damage had already been done... This lecture received little notice, it was ignored in Roland Clark’s watershed biography on Einstein published in 1971, and so the 20th and early 21st centuries evolved in such a way to dismiss entirely ether theory. http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/artic...he-new-physics


===========

Actually, Einstein did say:

"…in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no

longer allowed to speak about the ether in
physics. This opinion, however, was too
radical, as we will see later when we discuss
the general theory of relativity. It does
remain allowed, as always, to introduce a
medium filling all space and to assume that
the electromagnetic fields (and matter as
well) are its states…once again “empty”
space appears as endowed with physical
properties, i.e., no longer as physically
empty, as seemed to be the case according to
special relativity. One can thus say that the
ether is resurrected in the general theory of
relativity….Since in the new theory, metric
facts can no longer be separated from “true”
physical facts, the concepts of “space” and
“ether” merge together."

Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der
Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,”
Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro,
Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2.

(this is from Galileo Was Wrong)

Also Einstein is quoted as saying,

"According to the general theory of relativity
space is endowed with physical qualities; in
this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
According to the general theory of relativity
space without ether is unthinkable; for in
such space there would not only be no
propagation of light, but also no possibility
of existence for standards of space and time
(measuring rods and clocks), nor therefore
any space-time intervals in the physical
sense. But this ether may not be thought of
as endowed with the quality characteristic of
ponderable media, as consisting of parts
which may be tracked through time. The
idea of motion may not be applied to it."

Albert Einstein, “Geometry and Experience,” in
Sidelights on Relativity, 1983 (originally published 1921), p. 30, cited in De Labore
Solis, p. 65.

[iOWNme]

This is an incredibly interesting topic, and thanks to all who have contributed so far.

Im still reading a lot of what JQP has posted, all the links etc. But i searched for Robert Sungenis in youtube and found every debate imaginable EXCEPT for a Geocentric one. I did find these videos though:




This is a 3 part video series on the complete explanation of Geocentricity, Ive watched the first part and it seems pretty good so far.