Geocentrism

[JohnQPublic]

This thread is interesting, and I love that this discussion can be had here.

How do you feel about astrology, John?

Astrology is about the positions of heavenly bodies in the sky, as perceived from Earth. So, in practicality, it operates under a geocentric model.

As a Catholic, I do not get into astrology. Astronomy is ok!

[JohnQPublic]

Great background info on the experiments previously done JQP. This type of info is very important. Do you have any more experimental examples?

There are tons of them. I will try and outline some more. Galileo Was Wrong Volume I (the scientific case) is 600+ pages, and much of it talks about these experiments, observations, etc.

[JohnQPublic]

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~huter...MB_Huterer.pdf

"...Armed with multipole vectors, and joined by Dominik J. Schwarz of the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), we have discovered unexpected patterns in the CMB. Not only are the quadrupole and octopole planar, but their planes are nearly perpendicular to the ecliptic. Moreover, we found that the ecliptic plane lies precisely between the warmest and coolest lobes of the combined quadrupole plus octopole map. The likelihood of these alignments happening by chance is less than 0.1 percent. Finally, the quadrupole and octopole planes are also perpendicular with the CMB dipole, which points to the direction of motion of the solar system. Why CMB patterns are oriented to the solar system is not at all understood at this time."

Maybe it was before Copernicus' time?

[Horn]

Rotational systems tend to be stable. You would also feel some local gravity of the earth on its surface. Perhaps at the center of the earth gravity would cancel completely.

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

[sirgonzo420]

As a Catholic, I do not get into astrology. Astronomy is ok!

And a good catholic I presume you to be!

Your answer in an expected one.

Anyway, it's fortunate that the Magi were into astrology, or else they may have never found baby Jesus!

[DMac]

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

This and I think JQP you are in denial a bit my friend. The math required, using your model, would be quite different in calculating how to send stuff into space and keep it there. Assumptions about the nature of gravity and other forces allow us to do these things! The collective 'we' in humanity might not have all the answers of why, but math is a very specific subject. Changing position of heavenly bodies would mean different calculations altogether.

This seems so obvious to me, why do you not agree?

[JohnQPublic]

All the materials, comets meteors liquids, and gases moving at different speeds away, and towards each other in the entire universe would surely beg to differ.

The entire universe is a rotational system, but that does not preclude local motion. The planets, asteroids, dust clouds, etc. still orbit the sun for instance. If we look at the universe as an aether, then the aether carries the momentum of the universe with it, but within in any small local area, galaxies can form and rotate, planetary systems can be exist, etc.

[DMac]

GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.

They do not know whether they are rotating around the earth or if the earth is rotating beneath them. This is a simple matter of relative motion. Your argument is that since they see the earth rotating below them, this proves the earth rotates. Why can't I argue that since I see the stars rotating around me, this proves the stars are rotating? I won't, because both observations have two possible answers (at least). First the earth is stationary and the stars rotating around it. Second the earth is rotating within the fixed star field. See the issue? That was why my first question was 'what is your fixed reference', which you gave a rational answer, 'there is not one', yet now you are claiming relative references as fixed.

You did not answer my point JQP, you brought up a strawman to the point and knocked it down. GPS satellites use VERY specific math and engineering. The exact same equations in math and engineering are used to get a satellite circling Jupiter (which is in motion, rotating) or in orbit around Earth (also in motion, rotating).

Seriously, this point needs to be addressed specifically. Geocentrists need to put up formula on how and why GPS works within a stationary earth framework and show that the calculations are IDENTICAL to those of a rotating Earth, otherwise, move this theory back to the junk bin where it belongs!

This is the crux of my argument and why Geocentrism does not make sense. We have applied physics, engineering and mathematics that one must ignore for the Geocentric model to work.

You cannot deny this. Math is math regardless of the motives behind the calculator.

Edit to add: for those unaware, GPS technology completely refutes the geocentric model because GPS positioning systems use math based on a rotating earth with specific stars chosen as the fixed point of reference! Not the stationary earth, but as it appears, the stationary stars. Using general relativity in calculating time, global positioning is achieved. None of this is possible under the Geo model, as JQP wrote earlier arguments against the accuracy of general relativity.

Without these specific details, which are the literal antithesis of geocentrism, GPS tech as known by humanity today, would not exist.

[JohnQPublic]

This and I think JQP you are in denial a bit my friend. The math required, using your model, would be quite different in calculating how to send stuff into space and keep it there. Assumptions about the nature of gravity and other forces allow us to do these things! The collective 'we' in humanity might not have all the answers of why, but math is a very specific subject. Changing position of heavenly bodies would mean different calculations altogether.

This seems so obvious to me, why do you not agree?

DMac- geocentrism uses the same physics as heliocentrism or any other known system. On a solar system level, things are very similar. If a space craft passes near earth ot mars or any other planet, it feels the gravitational effect of that planet, and for engineering purposes, the other planets can largely be ignored. NASA uses whatever reference frame makes sense for the part of the mission they are in. If they are going to orbit mars, they are going to use a mars-centric reference frame, and largely ignore the rest of the planets in their calculations. This is engineering, not cosmology. The relative motions of the planets, moons, etc. are the same whether you look at the solar system from a sun or earth centered perspective. It has to be, or coordinate transforms would not work. Keep in mind that almost all our observational data until very recently started as earth centered observations, then was transformed to sun centered, or whatever (Mars centered, Jupiter centered, etc., depending on the mission). No one is proposing a Ptolemaic system. What we are proposing is a system that has all the same relative motions at any given time, and this is possible.

What you are saying seemed obvious to me in say 2003, but after studying this, and getting past all the misconceptions, what is obvious is that geocentrism is possible. I have worked with PhD physicists who can see it is possible. As you peel back the onion on the picture presented to us by modern science, you come to realize that they know much less than their promotional materials imply. If you read the sketches I posted yesterday, you can see a pattern of modern scientists protecting their cherished ideas (which they believed dogmatically, yet had no proof for), to the point that they abandoned simple ideas that could explain the observed phenomenon, and developed a very complex and unwieldy science to support their ideas. If you really look at the big bang theory it is extremely complex, unwieldy, and untenable, and the scientists themselves say that. Yet they push forward with it because the only viable alternative that does not require the complexity is unthinkable to them (a stationary earth). Keep in mind that the reason the 19th century science is interesting is that they did not have the benfit of a lot of the instruments, satellites, etc, we have now. To them the aether really explained a lot and gave them a theoretical framework that allowed them to explore their ideas (like general relativity today). Yet they abandoned the aether-not because they could not find aether, but because they could not find an aether that supported their presumptions (that the earth was moving).

I will try and present some other concepts to help paint this picture, but if you have any interest, get Galileo Was Wrong. The PDF version is pretty inexpensive. It lays out the entire case in a pretty easy to read format; though some sections do get more technical (as you would expect is required for this topic).

[mick silver]

so are we moving though the universe all the time , are we fixed to one place ? if the earth does not turn then are we a fixed in place?