Thinking About Geocentrism

[Maksutov]

At least one of our geocentrist posters has claimed that the Earth is immobile, neither rotating nor revolving around another body. To explain the observed movements of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, it is proposed that these bodies move around the Earth.

One peculiar thing though (out of many peculiar things). Looking at this from a geocentrist point of view, the only stars that could be described as moving around the Earth would be those on the celestial equator. When the paths of all other stars are examined, their centers of motion are positioned somewhere other than the Earth. As stars are located farther from the celestial equator, their diurnal motion becomes less and their centers of revolution are farther and farther from Earth. And in the case of stars near the north and south celestial poles, which show very little diurnal motion at all, their centers of revolution are very distant indeed.

Case in point. Let's look at the "orbit" of Polaris by examining a 6-hour time exposure of the "North Star". This star will describe an arc that is 1/4 of a circle whose diameter is 1 degree, 28 minutes. The center of Polaris's revolution is obviously 44 minutes from the diameter of this circle. And this center of revolution is a long way from anything on Earth, including Earth's center of mass.

Objects need to have at least one other mass in order to establish an orbit. Otherwise there's a translational velocity, but no orbit since there's no two-body system.

Therefore the paths of >99% of all stars demonstrate that the concept of the stars revolving around the Earth is false. And, for me, that's enough thought about geocentrism.

Note: crystal spheres are not allowed in this discussion.

[N C More]

Ok, now I'm not very educated in this area but wouldn't Newton's Laws be sufficient to disprove any theory of geocentricism?

Geocentrism says the Earth is in the center of the solar system, and all other bodies (including the sun) rotate around Earth...right? Now, according to Newton’s Laws, less massive objects orbit more massive objects. This would mean that the Sun would have to be less massive than the Earth! However, we know that this is just not correct. So, either geocentricism incorrect or Newton’s laws are incorrect! I don't see how any other conclusion can be arrived at?

[Gullible Jones]

A tiny sun made of very heavy fissile metals might work. But that does not fit the data we have gathered.

The EU sun might work, but that would fit the data even less, and would be multiplying entities unnecessarily. (Why not just have Earth's outer atmosphere glow, courtesy of a little Electrical Magic (tm)? :P )

[Maksutov]

Ok, now I'm not very educated in this area but wouldn't Newton's Laws be sufficient to disprove any theory of geocentricism?

Geocentrism says the Earth is in the center of the solar system, and all other bodies (including the sun) rotate around Earth...right? Now, according to Newton’s Laws, less massive objects orbit more massive objects. This would mean that the Sun would have to be less massive than the Earth! However, we know that this is just not correct. So, either geocentricism incorrect or Newton’s laws are incorrect! I don't see how any other conclusion can be arrived at?

Exactly, or at least when the difference in mass is great enough, the barycenter of the orbits is so close to the center of the more massive object that there appears to be essentially one orbit.

Please note that I wrote

One peculiar thing though (out of many peculiar things).

The peculiar thing I was pointing out was the impossible orbits of almost all stars "around" the Earth. You've pointed out another peculiar thing about geocentrism that is absurd. There are many more.

[Maksutov]

A tiny sun made of very heavy fissile metals might work. But that does not fit the data we have gathered.

The EU sun might work, but that would fit the data even less, and would be multiplying entities unnecessarily. (Why not just have Earth's outer atmosphere glow, courtesy of a little Electrical Magic (tm)? :P )

Yup. When push comes to shove, and the objective evidence is insurmountable, the geocentrists fall back on faith (= magic). :roll:

[Gullible Jones]

Ahh, faith. Well, I don't believe in faith! :P

[kanon14]

umm... i don't think they'll listen to any scientific theory that's not in favor of geocentrism, and any data that goes against them will be treated as disinfo

[TravisM]

It's just this kind of thing that scares the bajeezahs outta me. Man, gimme a break sometimes people... If we're tryin to figure this out here, then let's all figure this out here!
What really strikes me though is the general lack of comprehension on general topics, 'common' knowledge. Sure, we (I'm including you the casual reader of this thread) seek out those who'd rather chit-chat about this stuff, than, for instance, how well the markets did, or perhaps, some body's babies' daddies best friend's cousins sistas'... :roll: you get the general "jerry springer" idea...
The best theories can't be made general enough so that most people understand them. ( Is that a valid statement? )

Trav

[Maksutov]

?

[The Supreme Canuck]

TravisM dislikes the fact that people are far more interested in inane entertainment than useful information. Right?

[TravisM]

Don't get me wrong. I'm on yahoo chatting up a load of inane-ness... I'm actually all about a tangent when it comes to being off targt, but like my science served fresh, with a dash of mainstream. The new M theories look good to me, but with no real "big bang" you'd think I'm lying...
I gotta quit watchin my posts... #-o

[Ut]

Geocentrists amuse me to no end. I think because they, and the Young Earthers, are astronomy's answer to bio-creationism (and biology and I haven't been on speaking terms for some time now).

[A Thousand Pardons]

Ok, now I'm not very educated in this area but wouldn't Newton's Laws be sufficient to disprove any theory of geocentricism?

Yes, they are, but we "lost" Newton's laws nearly a hundred years ago. The implications still haven't been sorted out.

[Waarthog]

Note: crystal spheres are not allowed in this discussion.

Its called a firmament, get with the program.


The things you learn in high school theology.

[Donnie B.]

My old great-uncle Will (RIP) had a different idea about the firmament. He thought it was a shell of transparent ice that separated the waters above from the waters below, located (it seems) just above the atmosphere. He thought that space launches broke through that ice, and that the astronauts floated around in water when they made a space walk.

This all comes from a conversation I had with the old boy when he cornered me during a rare family visit to his home. He was around 80 at the time and I around 13. My parents were panicking that I would laugh or sneer at him, but I handled it pretty well -- asking him simple questions like "don't you think the astronauts could tell the difference between water and empty space?", while hoping like mad that someone would come rescue me. It was my first real encounter with, er, non-mainstream beliefs.

One lesson: there's a lot of variety, even among "literalists".

[N C More]

Ok, since Newton no longer applies, I can't help but wonder does Einstein's special relativity theory lend any credibility to geocentrism? If so, then why isn't geocentrism more of an accepted way of looking at things? To my knowledge this theory seems to be embraced by those who have a religious predisposition toward such a model and not much else to back it up.

[ToSeek]

Ok, since Newton no longer applies, I can't help but wonder does Einstein's special relativity theory lend any credibility to geocentrism? If so, then why isn't geocentrism more of an accepted way of looking at things? To my knowledge this theory seems to be embraced by those who have a religious predisposition toward such a model and not much else to back it up.

Relativity says there are no special frames of reference; therefore, a geocentric frame of reference is as legitimate as any other (even if it may make the math tougher in some cases). On the other hand, there's no reason to single out the center of the Earth as being immobile, either. Why not an inch from the center, or a mile? Why not the Moon, or Mars, or some random spacecraft?

[Gary Shelton]

Donnie B. wrote:

My old great-uncle Will (RIP) had a different idea about the firmament. He thought it was a shell of transparent ice that separated the waters above from the waters below, located (it seems) just above the atmosphere. He thought that space launches broke through that ice, and that the astronauts floated around in water when they made a space walk.

One other view of the waters above is that they are above the firmament, yes, but that the firmament refers to what we would call space. The "open firmament" is where the birds are placed to fly and the waters above are not referred to as being above that but rather above just the "firmament". Not acknowledging this difference between the firmament and open firmament has allowed for the Canopy Theory to place a vaporous water-filled body to satisfy the "floodgates of heaven" chop in Genesis.

Since we don't send shuttle missions up with pontoons, I think it is safe to say there is no water there today. Was there ever? It's still a debated subject. I just ask how could Adam have seen stars through such a canopy?

That the "firmament" may have a spherical shape around the earth is, I think, what Maksutov wanted to avoid on this thread.

Geocentrism is about the state of the heavens and earth as they exist and how they came to be that way. Yes, I would say that God created things just as he says in the Bible, and he there described the universe geocentrically. Is that a Biblical misunderstanding on the part of geocentrists? That is certainly the debate between the geocentrists and the creationists.

I am quite aware of what you feel, Maksutov, about the whole geocentric logic, or lack thereof, but it does beg the question: What do you feel is best state of the theory concerning the earth's origin? (In a nutshell, of course). The planets in our system rotate and revolve. Did this AM come from a Big Bang? Is LaPlace still valid?

Please feel free to link me or thread me if you wish.

Sincerely,

Gary Shelton

[samsara15]

Does this website have an archive? Is so, look it up, because there were some exhaustive posts on the subject a year or two ago. The Geocentrics defended their ideas fairly well, but their ideas seemed an almost identical concept as heliocentricism, neither being valid from the mainline point of view.

[Maksutov]

This is in response to those replies that were on-topic.

The earlier responses that involved religion were amusing, but at least one of the later responses attempted to divert this into more theological speculation and was a deliberate attempt to sidetrack the discussion.

The point of the OP was reconciling observed data (daily paths of the stars) with claims of geocentists. So far there has been no data offered to provide this reconciliation by either the "old school" geocentrists or by the relativistic geocentrists. As with its predecessor the relativistic geocentric position completely fails to provide any kind of explanation for the observed daily paths of the stars.

The point, once again, is that both Earth-centered views purport that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. The daily paths of the stars refute this.

[N C More]

Relativity says there are no special frames of reference; therefore, a geocentric frame of reference is as legitimate as any other (even if it may make the math tougher in some cases). On the other hand, there's no reason to single out the center of the Earth as being immobile, either. Why not an inch from the center, or a mile? Why not the Moon, or Mars, or some random spacecraft?

Ok, now I see the issue in regard to special relativity...there's no real way to objectivily prove either geocentrism or heliocentrism. What about Maksutov's point about the observed daily path of stars? Doesn't this observation lend support to heliocentrism?

[Ut]

Well, the stars aren't orbiting the sun, either. If one uses the path of stars on the sky to disprove a universal geocentrism, they also disprove a unviersal heliocentrism. Those same star paths don't rule out a local geocentristic model with the Earth at the centre of the solar system...err, rather, the geosystem.

[Maksutov]

Well, the stars aren't orbiting the sun, either. If one uses the path of stars on the sky to disprove a universal geocentrism, they also disprove a unviersal heliocentrism.

Correct. However the thing I'm working on here is that the Earth is rotating, thus disproving a basic tenet of geocentrism. The daily paths of the stars provide that conclusion.

It then follows that there are no "any-centric" models that conform to and properly predict observed data. But that's another topic.

Those same star paths don't rule out a local geocentristic model with the Earth at the centre of the solar system...err, rather, the geosystem.

Yes, they do, since the star paths are centered about something other than the Earth. For example, in a local geocentric model, with a fixed, non-rotating Earth, there wouldn't be any circumpolar stars.

What the daily star paths do support is that the Earth is rotating once every day.

[A Thousand Pardons]

The point of the OP was reconciling observed data (daily paths of the stars) with claims of geocentists. So far there has been no data offered to provide this reconciliation by either the "old school" geocentrists or by the relativistic geocentrists. As with its predecessor the relativistic geocentric position completely fails to provide any kind of explanation for the observed daily paths of the stars.

The point, once again, is that both Earth-centered views purport that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. The daily paths of the stars refute this.

I'd have to say you've constructed a straw man there. The claim is that the Earth is fixed and unmoving. Your inference is that the stars revolve around the earth, which, as you say is easily shown to not be true except for certain stars near the equator. It may well be that some statements were made about stars appearing to revolve around the earth in a bit less than 24 hours, but the comment was about those stars--to illustrate the vast speeds involved.

The relativistic geocentrism just invokes general relativity, which says that a fixed and unmoving earth is a valid reference frame.

[Ut]

Those same star paths don't rule out a local geocentristic model with the Earth at the centre of the solar system...err, rather, the geosystem.

Yes, they do, since the star paths are centered about something other than the Earth. For example, in a local geocentric model, with a fixed, non-rotating Earth, there wouldn't be any circumpolar stars.

This might be a good time to point out that the stars aren't part of the solar sytem as is commonly defined. I was specifically contrasting a local geocentric model, where the sun and planets revolve around Earth, which in turn is not itself static, to a universal one, which is the one you're discussing. I was also specifically responding to NC, but neglected to state that. Appologies all around

[Maksutov]

The point of the OP was reconciling observed data (daily paths of the stars) with claims of geocentists. So far there has been no data offered to provide this reconciliation by either the "old school" geocentrists or by the relativistic geocentrists. As with its predecessor the relativistic geocentric position completely fails to provide any kind of explanation for the observed daily paths of the stars.

The point, once again, is that both Earth-centered views purport that everything in the universe revolves around the Earth. The daily paths of the stars refute this.

I'd have to say you've constructed a straw man there. The claim is that the Earth is fixed and unmoving.

Not my claim, but rather the claim of the "classical" geocentrists and the relativistic ones (see your statement below).

Your inference is that the stars revolve around the earth, which, as you say is easily shown to not be true except for certain stars near the equator.

Not my inference, but instead that of the "classical" geocentrists. As specified in the OP

At least one of our geocentrist posters has claimed that the Earth is immobile, neither rotating nor revolving around another body. To explain the observed movements of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars, it is proposed [by the geocentrists] that these bodies move around the Earth.

It may well be that some statements were made about stars appearing to revolve around the earth in a bit less than 24 hours,...

Nothing said by me about that. Some other poster who is going off-track a bit?

...but the comment was about those stars--to illustrate the vast speeds involved.

Nothing said by me about that. Some other poster who is going off-track a bit?

The relativistic geocentrism just invokes general relativity, which says that a fixed and unmoving earth is a valid reference frame.

That does nothing to explain the apparent motion of the stars as seen from the Earth.

[Maksutov]

Those same star paths don't rule out a local geocentristic model with the Earth at the centre of the solar system...err, rather, the geosystem.

Yes, they do, since the star paths are centered about something other than the Earth. For example, in a local geocentric model, with a fixed, non-rotating Earth, there wouldn't be any circumpolar stars.

This might be a good time to point out that the stars aren't part of the solar sytem as is commonly defined.

By "commonly defined" I understand you to mean "commonly defined by heliocentrists". Even the geocentists define the stars as part of the geosystem. Of course both are in error.

I was specifically contrasting a local geocentric model, where the sun and planets revolve around Earth, which in turn is not itself static, to a universal one, which is the one you're discussing. I was also specifically responding to NC, but neglected to state that. Appologies all around

Understood. The OP concentrated only on the stars, in order to keep the model easily understandable, the relevant observations simple, and the results clear.

[Quartermain]

Relativity says there are no special frames of reference; therefore, a geocentric frame of reference is as legitimate as any other

In difference to this Relativity must assert that Geocentrism is incorrect for the simple fact that Geocentrism asserts that one (1) frame is correct. Relativity says all frames are correct. If all frames are correct one (1) frame is not. Therefore Geocentrism is invalid according to Relativity.

ToSeek, before you say a thing I know what you meant. And you're absolutely right. I'm just clearing it up becuase you have to agree there was a sutble point to make here.

[Thaxted]

All the facts of science are equally well explained by either model.
As shown by Barbour and Bertotti, the geocentric hypothesis
explains the speed of light, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, the Euler
effect, and some quantum mechanical effects from first principles.
Whereas the current acentric model needs a separate explanation for each. If the current model considered the presence of the universe in its derivations, then it too, would find those to be real gravitational forces. So right now, using Occam’s razor, the geocentric model wins.

[Maksutov]

1. Welcome to the BABB, Thaxted!

2.

All the facts of science are equally well explained by either model.

Not really. How does geocentrism explain the diurnal motion of stars as seen from Earth?

As shown by Barbour and Bertotti, the geocentric hypothesis explains the speed of light, the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, the Euler effect, and some quantum mechanical effects from first principles. Whereas the current acentric model needs a separate explanation for each. If the current model considered the presence of the universe in its derivations, then it too, would find those to be real gravitational forces. So right now, using Occam’s razor, the geocentric model wins.

The papers by Barbour and Bertotti contain a lot of speculation, but don't prove anything. Barbour especially has been on the "fringe" of physics for a long time. For example his ideas re time are really out there.

From an article in Physics World:

Barbour's solution to these fundamental problems is both stunning and simple: he proposes that time does not exist. He sees the possible states of space and matter in the universe as "snapshots", like the frames of a film. "What we see as an instant of time is just like freezing the universe and seeing where everything is." He claims that all of Newtonian mechanics can be explained without invoking absolute space and time, and believes that "quantum cosmology" can also be formulated without them.

But if we live in a timeless universe, how do we get the impression that time exists? According to Barbour, the main evidence for time comes from our direct experience of seeing motion and experiencing things changing. "You always have to see something moving to say that time has passed," says Barbour, waving his hand in front of me. "At any instant, information about several different positions of my hand could be coded in the neuronal patterns in your brain," he explains. "They're all there at once, and the brain is playing the movie for you. What we think of as the flow of time - and even seeing motion - is actually an illusion." Barbour believes that his ideas will help to understand "instants of time", without supposing that they belong to something that flows relentlessly forward.

This is much less physics, and more like sophomoric "nature of reality" debate material. Barbour would have you believe that not only does the tree in the forest not make a noise if there's no one there to hear it, but also if there's no one there, the tree doesn't actually fall.

Sorry, no go.