A defence of helio-centricism

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
You see, Hoyles perspective was an Earth-based view.

Well this is precisely what I'm saying. From an Earth based observational perspective, the two systems are identical. Once we have settled that point we can move onto forces and satellites.

This will help because when other people join the discussion and try to raise kinematic points you can say to them that kinematically the two systems are identical. You can explain that we have moved on from that because its inadmissable to the argument of defending heliocentrism.

No matter which frame of reference you use, you will see the same things from Earth. Agreed?

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
No matter which frame of reference you use, you will see the same things from Earth. Agreed?

Actually I can see the same thing in a planetarium. The classical planetarium projectors actually use a ptolemaic geocentric mechanical system to project what heavenly observations look like from Earth...but this doesn't mean to imply there's a heavenly system of gears like are used in the planetarium projector. Similarly I can observe the same thing in the animation you posted the link to, which don't use gears but instead use pixels on a monitor to again provide any appearance we want to see.

As Hoyle confirmed and as the planetarium projector gears confirm, the geocentric Ptolemaic model does a good job of predicting Earth-based observations, but what you aren't addressing is that predicting them is not explaining them.

Here are some questions for you:
Do you agree with Wikipedia estimates on:
The mass, diameter, and density of the Earth?
The mass diameter and density of the sun?

And if you have different figures, how did you arrive at them?

Next, what about the formula for gravitational attraction in Wikipedia...do you agree with that? If not what formula or math do you associate with gravity? I already agreed with Hoyle's quote from an Earth based perspective as merely predictive of observation in a previous post...asking me to agree to it again isn't moving the discussion forward, so let's move the discussion forward, or drop it.

And of course the question this is all leading up to is, what kind of math do you have to support the sun revolving around the Earth in relation to gravitational force, if any?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i presented an argument that no observed behaviour falsifies helio-centricism [ that includes observations and measurments of the forces you wish to ignore

I presented an argument that no bare kinematic observed behaviour falsifies geocentrism. So we must agree that kinematic evidence alone (retrograde, parallax, phases etc) cannot defend the helio model.

That is a completely seperate issue from the forces which I can explain as soon as you concede this simple point.

There is no need to get angry and be rude.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


oh hall - 2 of us can play silly buggers

a martian-centric , or venusian-centric model of the solar system is kinematically indistinguishable from the geo-centric

agree or disagree ??

PS - if you agree - what is your next edivence for geocentricism ??????

i also note that despite the fact that you claim not to have - you have already used special pleading - as you embrace helio-centricism - but only for mercury and venus

so you have nothing against heliocentricism - but not for earth - oooops iave i seen through your dogma ?

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


it is an utter irrelevancy - explain the magic roundabout and stop being a child

there is absolutly no logical reason for you to demand " acceptance " of your kinematic red herrying as a condition of revealing your other arguments

from the start i susmected your beliefs were dogmatic , not scientific - as i have dealt with countless biblical literalists over the years

and have a rule - dont jump through hoops that there is no logical reason to jump through

so - last time - explain the majic roundabout

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
As Hoyle confirmed and as the planetarium projector gears confirm, the geocentric Ptolemaic model does a good job of predicting Earth-based observations

Ok this is very good. Thank you for discussing in a civil manner.

This is the first point I wanted tio make. That geocentrism and heliocentrism both do a good job of dealing with raw observation of the heavens. There is no difference between the two.

Although, I would like to call it the neo-Tychonian model if you dont mind, as that is the model we use.

Ok, to your questions:

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you agree with Wikipedia estimates on:
The mass, diameter, and density of the Earth?
The mass diameter and density of the sun?

I dont agree nor disagree with estimates of mass or density shown on wikipedia. The reason it doesnt much bother me is because it doesnt matter. Even if the density and mass of the sun is much bigger than the Earth, it doesnt mean that the Earth cannot be the centre of the system. If we were dealing with an isolated two body system, this all might be relevant, but we arnt. We are dealing with the entire univererse which consists of billions of stars which all have density and mass, some probably much greater than the sun.

You see its simply a matter of balance. The Earth can be the barycentre of the universe if all the stars are arranged correctly around it.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Next, what about the formula for gravitational attraction in Wikipedia...do you agree with that? If not what formula or math do you associate with gravity?

LeSagean Gravity.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And of course the question this is all leading up to is, what kind of math do you have to support the sun revolving around the Earth in relation to gravitational force, if any?

My friend, it is useless to concern ourselves with formulas and math. Math doesnt prove anything other than the abilty of man to balance two sides of an equals symbol. You can say 1+3=4 and I can say 2+2=4. We both end up with the same result but which of our equations is right?

All I can offer you is reason and logic and explanation using quotes from experts in the field.

The basic premise is this. Just as kinematic observations between our two systems are identical and are only seperated by a matter of relative motion, so too are forces relative.

"...all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them...Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

- Ernst Mach, Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, eighth ed, Leipzig, p. 222, 1921.

Notice Mach says ALL FORCES are relative.
You have a rotating Earth in a fixed universe.
I have a fixed Earth in a rotating universe.

The two systems produce exactly the same effects. Coriolis, centrefugal, Eular and gravity. (In fact in my system all of these effects are due to the same force produced by the rotation of the universe.) I dont hold a degree in physics but let me offer this by way of explanation from someone qualified:

"…we have seen, Leibniz and Mach emphasized that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct….the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton….the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed stars. The distant matter in the universe exerts a force, –mgamf, on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits. In the Ptolemaic system, the earth is considered to be at rest and without rotation in the center of the universe, while the sun, other planets and fixed stars rotate around the earth. In relational mechanics this rotation of distant matter yields the force ..... Now the gravitational attraction of the sun is balanced by a real gravitational centrifugal force due to the annual rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a component having a period of one year). In this way the earth can remain at rest and at an essentially constant distance from the sun. The diurnal rotation of distant masses around the earth (with a period of one day) yields a real gravitational centrifugal force flattening the earth at the poles. Foucault’s pendulum is explained by a real Coriolis force acting on moving masses over the earth’s surface .....The effect of this force will be to keep the plane of oscillation of the pendulum rotating together with the fixed stars."

- Andre K. T. Assis, professor of pphysics at the University of Campinas - UNICAMP, in Brazil.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
a martian-centric , or venusian-centric model of the solar system is kinematically indistinguishable from the geo-centric

agree or disagree ??

I agree. Can we add sun-centric to that list too?

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
PS - if you agree - what is your next edivence for geocentricism ??????

I dont need to present evidence. This thread is all about you defending helio model remember?

So far you have tried kinematics. That has failed. Now we are onto forces.

Originally posted by ignorant_apefrom the start i susmected your beliefs were dogmatic , not scientific - as i have dealt with countless biblical literalists over the years

As you will learn, the acceptance of a heliocentric/big bang/expanding universe model is not scientific but based on philosophical reasons.

When we analyze the universe and it appears we are the centre, this is rejected by modern science on unscientific grounds, as the high priests of the hypothetical science religion will readily admit:

“…the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty.”

- Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).

His co-author in another book, George F. R. Ellis admits much the same:

“This assumption is made because it is believed to be unreasonable that we should be near the center of the Universe.”

- George F. R. Ellis, “Is the Universe Expanding?” General Relativity and Gravitation 9 (2): 92 (1978).

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


you believe the earth is at rest and the entire universe rotates around the earth? the space of the universe? or all other galaxies, stars, planets etc.? the earth is one planet out of 43954838589896843853458934545934, why does everything that has ever existed and will exist rotate around the earth, and not the earth included in that number of everything rotate around another planetary body? or is your point that every molecule is equally relative and everything rotates around everything relatively equally? or you think that earth and its inhabitants are the greatest thing the universe could create with infinite energy and time, that our rock and our bodies of energy are most important, and that the whole universe is in attendance waiting patiently for our drama to unfold like a fairy tale or a real reality show?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ArmorOfGod

 

you believe the earth is at rest and the entire universe rotates around the earth? the space of the universe? or all other galaxies, stars, planets etc.? the earth is one planet out of 43954838589896843853458934545934, why does everything that has ever existed and will exist rotate around the earth, and not the earth included in that number of everything rotate around another planetary body? or is your point that every molecule is equally relative and everything rotates around everything relatively equally? or you think that earth and its inhabitants are the greatest thing the universe could create with infinite energy and time, that our rock and our bodies of energy are most important, and that the whole universe is in attendance waiting patiently for our drama to unfold like a fairy tale or a real reality show?

Yes I think the Earth is special and occupy's a unique position. And thats what science tells us too. I know it is a "horror" to modern science to accept observations and this reality needs to be "escaped" somehow. Which is what Einstein's job was, coming up with special relativity.

“…Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth.…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility...the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs... such a favored position is intolerable…. Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape”

Edwin Hubble - (The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, pp. 50, 51,58-59.)

Notice Hubble says a geocentric hypothesis cannot be disproved. But good luck to you.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


oh dear - you poor littlr quote mineing liar

you REALLY think i have not experienced this topic before

now lets quote proffessor hawkins in context :

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem
to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we
observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is,
however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other
galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or
against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe
looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe! In Friedmann’s
model, all the galaxies are moving directly away from each other. The situation is rather like a balloon with a
number of spots painted on it being steadily blown up. As the balloon expands, the distance between any two
spots increases, but there is no spot that can be said to be the center of the expansion. Moreover, the farther
apart the spots are, the faster they will be moving apart. Similarly, in Friedmann’s model the speed at which any
two galaxies are moving apart is proportional to the distance between them. So it predicted that the red shift of
a galaxy should be directly proportional to its distance from us, exactly as Hubble found. Despite the success of
his model and his prediction of Hubble’s observations, Friedmann’s work remained largely unknown in the West
until similar models were discovered in 1935 by the American physicist Howard Robertson and the British
mathematician Arthur Walker, in response to Hubble’s discovery of the uniform expansion of the universe.

source

oops - your quote mineing attempt has failed

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
oops - your quote mineing attempt has failed

Any assertions of quotemeing must be qualified by adequate context AND an explanation of WHY a poster has quotemined.

An assertion with the context but without explanation is not good enough.

I see nothing in the context you provided that negates the fact that he says he has no scientific evidence for the expanding balloon theory.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
Notice Mach says ALL FORCES are relative.

OK I don't know if you believe the "inverse-square law", but it says that at ten times the distance, gravitational force is 100 times less. So you could have one satellite we'll call A, a certain distance away with a certain force we'll call F at a distance D. Now let's say another satellite B is 100 times more massive, and let's say the distance is 10xD. Since B is 100 times as massive as A, but is 10 times further away than A, it will end up having the same force. That is the consequence of stating that all forces are relative. Of course they are relative...it doesn't mean that they don't matter, or that the math isn't important.

You have a rotating Earth in a fixed universe.
I have a fixed Earth in a rotating universe.

As you may know, not all geocentrists have the same model, so this clarifies yours. Some geocentric models have the earth rotating, but apparently yours doesn't. one big problem I see with the model that it's the universe rotating and not the Earth, is the velocity stars and galaxies would need to have to make a revolution around the Earth in 24 hours.

So let's calculate the orbit of an object traveling the speed of light around the Earth in 24 hours. Assume a circular orbit for simplicity. The speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s. Now how many seconds are there in 24 hours? 60 per minute times 60 per hour times 24=86400 seconds.

Now we multiply the time in 24 hours by the speed, to get the distance light travels in 24 hours:

86400s times 299,792,458 m/s = 25.9x10^12 meters. This is the length of a circle around the Earth that light can travel in one day. So how far is this circle from the Earth? The length of the orbit is 2 times Pi times the radius of the orbit. So mathematically this becomes:

25.9x10^12 meters = 2*Pi*r
When we divide both sides by 2*pi we get the radius of this big circle: 4.12x10^12 meters

What is the significance of that number? That is the maximum distance any object can be from the Earth, and rotate around the Earth in 24 hours without exceeding the speed of light.

Now, do you follow that?
Do you think material objects can or cannot travel faster than the speed of light in their rotation around the Earth?
How far from the Earth do you think the most distant objects are, which rotate around the Earth in 24 hours? You can express the distance in meters, or light years, or any length units, as we can convert.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
OK I don't know if you believe the "inverse-square law", but it says that at ten times the distance, gravitational force is 100 times less. So you could have one satellite we'll call A, a certain distance away with a certain force we'll call F at a distance D. Now let's say another satellite B is 100 times more massive, and let's say the distance is 10xD. Since B is 100 times as massive as A, but is 10 times further away than A, it will end up having the same force. That is the consequence of stating that all forces are relative. Of course they are relative...it doesn't mean that they don't matter, or that the math isn't important.

Hi Arbitrageur, thank you for your reply.

By 'relative' I meant that no matter which frame of reference you use (the fixed Earth or the fixed universe) you will get the same forces. Those forces matter regardless which frame you use, never denied that.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Do you think material objects can or cannot travel faster than the speed of light in their rotation around the Earth?
How far from the Earth do you think the most distant objects are, which rotate around the Earth in 24 hours? You can express the distance in meters, or light years, or any length units, as we can convert.

This is an excellent point sir.

And the answer in my model, is that even though the stars do indeed travel around the Earth in one day, they are not actually moving at any kind of speed.

Sounds confusing?

Well, the basis of the geocentric position is the existance of the aether. A super rigid framework (the biblical firmament) which has Planck dimensions and which cutting edge scientists sometimes call 'spacefoam' or 'Planck Vacuum' or maybe even 'The Grid'. It is the aether that rotates around the Earth every 24 hours (approx) and everything that is embedded in that aether is simply carried with it.

Just a note....

How fast does mainstream science say the solar system is travelling around the galactic centre?

What about the galaxy speed expanding from other galaxies?

Incidentally this quote seems to be saying that according to GRT when gravitational fields are present then its not a problem for objects to travel at speeds exceeding the speed of light.

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rω [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 × 108 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 × 108 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 × 108 m/sec under these conditions.”

- An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 460, comments in brackets added.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod



if your theory is true, what would it mean to you, what would it imply?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
if your theory is true, what would it mean to you, what would it imply?

Geocenrism is not a theory to me, its scientific and scriptural truth.

More importantly, what would it mean to you?

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
This is an excellent point sir.

And the answer in my model, is that even though the stars do indeed travel around the Earth in one day, they are not actually moving at any kind of speed.

Sounds confusing?

Yes, it sounds confusing. Motion implies speed/velocity. So I must say at this point, you lost me. What about Saturn? It's not a star, is it moving at any kind of speed? If it's not moving at any kind of speed, how does it manage to appear in different positions relative to other objects like stars? What about Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto? Same question, are they moving at any kind of speed?

How fast does mainstream science say the solar system is travelling around the galactic centre?

pretty fast compared to highway speeds on Earth. Pretty slow compared to the speed of light

What about the galaxy speed expanding from other galaxies?

The lambda CDM theory (mainstream theory) says that it's space itself which is expanding. This expanding space gives distant galaxies a redshift which is more a result of space itself expanding, than a result of the galaxies moving through space. For this reason it wouldn't be a violation of GR for the redshift of a distant galaxy to approach the speed of light. It's possible that some galaxy may have a recessional velocity greater than the speed of light, but it's not moving through space at this velocity, this would be the result of the metric expansion of space between us and that galaxy. I don't see how the rotating framework you suggest allows greater than speed of light velocity though.

Incidentally this quote seems to be saying that according to GRT when gravitational fields are present then its not a problem for objects to travel at speeds exceeding the speed of light.

- An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, William G. V. Rosser, 1964, p. 460, comments in brackets added.

It does seem to be saying that, but it doesn't make it true. I'm actually much more concerned with your comment that the stars are moving around the Earth without traveling at any kind of speed. That shows a lack of agreement on a much simpler concept...the definition of speed, which should be fairly simple...it's just distance per unit time. In contrast to that, Relativity is pretty complex. There's not much point in debating what does or doesn't conform to relativity, if we can't even agree that objects rotating around the Earth must be traveling at some kind of speed.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


i dont need that theory to be true, or it just doesnt matter to me, it doesnt effect my views on the incredible fact that the universe exists, and we, life and all our functions exist, every day of my life for years and years, some times for 6 hours at a time or more i have spent in deep thought contemplating and interpreting the deepest questions i could come up with of my existence on this planet. i dont have a craving to justify my importance and im not a baby craving the universe to revolve around me,,. every pinpoint of consciousness believes it is the center, because relativisticly it is its own center, it is a point, a sole, one, every fly, ever bear, .,,.,. i knew you would point out my misuse of the word, i should have said "the" theory instead of your.... it wouldnt make any difference to me which theory is true, What would it mean to you? ah assuming you will say it means we have a much more personal relationship with god... i will say any way i look at it, I have the most personal relationship with god, you shouldn't need cheap concepts to justify this, if anything the fairy tale stuff hurts your mission..