Thinking About Geocentrism some more

[A Thousand Pardons]

I'm focused on the fact that JPL and every university astronomy dept. that I've googled up uses a heliocentric solar system model

what about SeanF's finding, back on page one?

[N C More]

I don't think "As the sun rises . . . and sets . . ." exactly qualifies as a solar system model. Remember, the way thoughts are conveyed via language is very ancient.

[A Thousand Pardons]

what are the qualifications? or is that a personal belief?

[N C More]

what are the qualifications? or is that a personal belief?

I do teach English as a second language and I do know that many colloquialisms are derived from historical language (the roots of the English language are very old). I do not know for certain regarding this particular saying but it seems highly reasonable that this saying comes from a time when people actually did believe that the sun moved across the heavens.

However, if you contest that NASA actually does adhere to a model where the Sun is in motion and the Earth is static then I'd be very interested in seeing this model!

[trth_skr]

N C More wrote:

Well, I don't really see that everyone's coming to the same conclusion...there's the rub, so to speak. The theoretical physicists are focused solely on GR and it's arcane meaning.

From Google (the great seer):

requiring secret or mysterious knowledge; "the arcane science of dowsing"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

It is not "arcane". GR is formulated specifically with an acentric model of the universe. Therefor, it MUST reject any idea of an actual real center. IF we had a complete model of the universe, we could transform coordinates to any point in that universe, and describe the observations (kinetics) and dynamics (forces) seen / felt at that point. We could pick a fixed earth. All observations would be what we see (they must be, this is more basic than GR or SR, it is mathematics). All forces would be describable as coming from the rest of the universe (e.g., Thirring).

This does not prove Geocentricity, but says that if the assumption of GR is wrong, andd the earth actually is a center, GR itself cannot say it is not, except by pointing to its assumptions.

That being said, GR cannot and has not disproved Geocentrism (and cannot by virtues of its own principles).

N C More says:

I'm focused on the fact that JPL and every university astronomy dept. that I've googled up uses a heliocentric solar system model...

JPL and all these university systems depend on GR. They have no independent observations from an absolute reference frame to validate their preferred heliocentric model. They prefer the heliocentric system because they see it as simple, and it works. In reality a Geocentric system satisfies this sometimes, also. As amazing as it sounds, they have not "proven" the heliocentric system.

In reality, when NASA launcehs interplanetary probes, they used a fixed sun coordinate transformation. When they launch earth orbiting probes, they use a fixed earth coordinate transformation.

NASA and JPL are more like engineers than cosmologists (most of them). They use practical considerations to determine which coordinate system will lead to the mathematically simplest solution, just as engineers use many approximations (e.g., Newtonian mechanics), which work fine on a non-cosmological scale.

N C More says:

...and I think trth_skr is focused on somehow using GR to support some type of faith based belief for geocentrism.

As explained above, I am not trying to use GR to prove Geocentrism. I am just trying to point out, that in absence the assumption of acentricity in the universe, Geocentrism is not disproven by any fact. We really do not know if even the heliocentric solar system is correct without resorting to disproven simplicity arguments.

I am studying the Biblical and Church side of the issue also. The literal Bible does appear to be Geocentric, and te Church Fathers were all Geocentrists (even arguing against the Greeks who supported heliocentrism long before Corpenicus). This does give me a reason to consider Geocentrism, yes, but if there were a clear reason to reject it I would consider that, also. So far, I cannot see one, so I see no reason to reject Geocentrism outright. I am finding that we know so much, much less about the cosmos than I have believed before studying this issue, so much so that I am actually quite shocked.

N C More finishes:

Now, I could be wrong as it's beginning to confuse me as well, now that I really think about it!

Hope this helps.

[trth_skr]

N C More ofers:

However, if you contest that NASA actually does adhere to a model where the Sun is in motion and the Earth is static then I'd be very interested in seeing this model!

http://www.commlinx.com.au/Datum%20T...scription.html

http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gc...if/ecefxyz.gif

http://www.wgs84.com/wgs84/wgs84.htm

[trth_skr]

N C More:

However, if you contest that NASA actually does adhere to a model where the Sun is in motion and the Earth is static then I'd be very interested in seeing this model!

http://alpha.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/die...Transform.html

I believe some of these also stop rotation of the earth (unlike the WGS84).

Obviously, these are all coordinate transforms, and are not posted to prove Geocentrism.

[Van Rijn]

I was trying to make a joke, sorry. "geocentrism" on this board is basically Geocentrism without the restriction that other reference frames are invalid. It is not meaningless.

And that doesn't make sense. What is meant by "center"? How can there be an infinite number of "centers"? How can there be a center in the observable universe? My impression is that this is just another way of saying the same thing (no preferred reference frame) with controversial and misleading terminology.

Well, I don't really see that everyone's coming to the same conclusion...there's the rub, so to speak. The theoretical physicists are focused solely on GR and it's arcane meaning. I'm focused on the fact that JPL and every university astronomy dept. that I've googled up uses a heliocentric solar system model and I think trth_skr is focused on somehow using GR to support some type of faith based belief for geocentrism.

Yes, if the subject was "Thinking about Sednacentrism" we would at least know that the Earth wasn't being singled out as something special.

I'm not focused on GR, but if someone says accepted theory and observation are compatible with Geocentrism, that's not correct. If that isn't what they mean, fine, but it should be clearly stated.

The Heliocentric solar system model is a useful approximation for the solar system, but let's be clear that it is no more accurate to speak of a Heliocentric universe as a Geocentric universe. Just leave the word "center" out of the discussion and you'll be much happier ... :wink:

[N C More]

I didn't say that such models didn't exist but rather if NASA actually adheres to any such model.

[A Thousand Pardons]

My impression is that this is just another way of saying the same thing (no preferred reference frame) with controversial and misleading terminology.

Are you saying that you agree that there is no physical evidence against Geocentrism?

I didn't say that such models didn't exist but rather if NASA actually adheres to any such model.

I know for a fact that NASA doesn't adhere to a heliocentric system.

[N C More]

I know for a fact that NASA doesn't adhere to a heliocentric system.

Remember, I was talking about a heliocentric model for the solar system such as the one shown on the JPL site. I'm also certain that NASA doesn't adhere to the idea that our Sun is the static center of the universe.

Too many word games here for my taste.

[R.A.F.]

Too many word games here for my taste.

Agreed!

[Van Rijn]

Too many word games here for my taste.

Tell me about it.

My impression is that this is just another way of saying the same thing (no preferred reference frame) with controversial and misleading terminology.

Are you saying that you agree that there is no physical evidence against Geocentrism?

Speaking of which ... ATP, is it possible for you to provide a straight answer? Could you possibly stop the out of context quoting? Note the immediately preceding comments I made in reference to "geocentrism with a small 'g'":

And that doesn't make sense. What is meant by "center"? How can there be an infinite number of "centers"? How can there be a center in the observable universe?

For my part: No, as I defined Geocentrism, it is not compatible with physical evidence. There is no evidence that the accessible universe has a center or can have a center. The Earth is not at such a center.

At this point, I think "geocentrism with a small 'g'" is being used to mean something completely different from what is implied.

[trth_skr]

Van Rijn Says:

There is no evidence that the accessible universe has a center or can have a center. The Earth is not at such a center.

Most of this was collected by Robert Sungenis, author of the upcoming book, "Galileo was Wrong". It is considered controversial, and many people believe they have alternate explanations. (stating up front).
See www.catholicintl.com for more details.

OBSERVATIONS INDICATING EARTH AS THE CENTER

GRB distributions
One such observation is reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University:

The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe; Earth is not at the center of the solar system, the Sun is not at the center of the galaxy, and so forth. There is no reason to believe we are at the center of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts. If our instruments are sensitive enough to detect bursts at the edge of the spatial distribution, then they should not be isotropic on the sky, contrary to observation; if our instruments are less sensitive, then the N ~ S^-3/2 law should hold, also contrary to observation. That is the Copernican dilemma.

Red Shift Quantization:

The first claimed observations of quasar redshift quantization came in 1976 by astrophysicist Y.P. Varshni. He presented his data with three possible interpretations, one of which is that Earth was in the center of the universe. Varshni wrote (in Astrophysics and Space Science, 1976, 43:3)

... the quasars in the 57 groups ... are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center ... The cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar
Varshni was pressured to give an alternate theory of the concentric red shift pattern because the status quo of science did not welcome his earth-centered conclusion. Edwin Hubble saw the same thing as Varshni, only his evidence was from the galaxies he observed in concentric locations. Hubble, rather than denying this evidence, stated that it was "intolerable" to him to have the earth as the center of the universe, and thus he preferred an alternate explanation (The Observation Approach to Cosmology, 1937). Besides, no one really accepted Varshni's alternate explanation ("laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star"), since it did not accord with what they had already proposed about the meaning of red shift. The only one to challenge Varshni's original results was C. B. Stephenson who attempted to explain Varshni's findings by suggesting that the Big Bang produced periodic bands of quasars that spread out over time. Varshni wrote back to the same periodical a few months later critiquing Stephenson's proposal, saying: "Instead of having Earth at the center, now we have to assume that the Universe evolved in fits and starts of quasar production. The concept of preferred epochs for quasar production is hardly any more aesthetic than that of a preferred position for the Earth." (References in "Galileo Was Wrong").

In 1970, William G. Tifft, astronomer at Steward Observatory at the University of Arizona showed that a few dozen galaxies were situated from Earth at specific redshifts, namely, in multiples of 72 km/sec in redshift values, as recorded in "Global Redshift Periodicities: Association with the Cosmic Background Radiation" Astrophysics and Space Science, 239, 35 (1996), and "Evidence for Quantized and Variable Redshifts in the CBR Rest Frame," Astrophysics and Space Science, 1997. Even today, Tift continues to insist on a quantization of local galaxies' redshifts. In 1992, Sky and Telescope magazine gave coverage to Tifft's ideas and extrapolated a possible geocentric interpretation to his fitted data ("Quantized Redshifts: What's Going on Here?" 84:128, 1992).

Other references to the same type of work on quantized quasar and galactic redshifts, are Tifft and Cocke writing of this phenomenon in Sky and Telescope, 73:19, in 1987 in the article "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts," as well as in New Scientist of June 22, 1985, in the article "Galaxy Redshifts Come in Clumps." Burbidge wrote about the same phenomenon in Mercury in the article "Quasars in the Balance," 17:136 in 1988. Halton Arp has provided the most information in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies." He and Burbidge wrote of their work in Physics Today, 37:17 (1984) in the article "Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On." In 1991, astronomers Bruce N. G. Guthrie and William M. Napier of the Royal University at Edinburgh compared the redshifts from 89 single spiral galaxies and found a periodicity that was very close to Tifft's quantum multiple for this class of galaxies.

The war between Big Bang theorists and their opponents wages even more fiercely as time goes on. As of this writing, in a recent article titled “No Quantized Redshifts,” Sky and Telescope noted that a 2002 study conducted by Edward Hawkins and his colleagues at the University of Nottingham, England, revealed contrary evidence:

…Hawkins…recently sifted through the massive new 2dF [Two Degree Field] redshift surveys of galaxies and quasars to test this idea. These surveys provided “by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study,” writes Hawkins in the October 11th Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society… Among 1,647 galaxy-quasar pairs, no sign of any quantized redshifts appears.

This study was specifically designed to test Arp’s theory that various galaxies and quasars occupy the same vicinity, the former producing the latter when material from the galaxy is ejected. If Arp is right, then obviously quasars are not at “cosmological” distances from Earth, that is, they are not at the farthest reaches of the universe. In addition, Arp holds that the redshifts of these galaxy pairs are quantized, that is, they appear in regular intervals and are not homogeneous. Both of these (i.e., pairing and quantization) would be impossible to explain from a Big Bang perspective.
Out of 250,000 galaxies and 30,000 quasars, the Hawkins team limited their study to 1647 galaxy-quasar pairs for the purposes of “quality control.” Of these pairs they state that:

No periodicity leaps off the page, but since the effect is likely to be quite subtle, one would not necessarily expect to be able to pick it out from the raw data, so it is important to carry out a rigorous statistical analysis.

This, of course, opens the door for disagreements over the statistical data. At this point, opposing sides point the finger at each other. The Hawkins team determines that: “one can manipulate the data in order to specify ones own more optimal window – a procedure that statisticians whimsically refer to as ‘carpentry,” and they conclude that “…the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window [statistical] function.” Followers of the Arp team see it quite differently. Geoffrey Burbidge asserts that the entire work of the Hawkins team “is a real piece of dishonesty,” since Burbidge’s colleague, William Napier, had already pointed out a serious statistical flaw in Hawkins’ analysis before he published his paper. Napier subsequently submitted a rebuttal to the Royal Astronomical Society alerting the society to Hawkins’ flaw, as well as citing a recent Hubble photograph showing that one of the pairs studied by Hawkins had a luminous filament that physically connected the galaxy to the quasar. Although Hawkins asserts that he and his team “attempted to carry out this analysis without prejudice,” Burbidge concludes that the resistance of Hawkins and other Big Bang theorists is due to the “sociological problem associated with the need to believe” that redshifts are related to distances.

(Confirming Arp’s contentions, a recent report showed that galaxy NGC 7603 and its companion quasar each had very different redshifts but were physically linked by a luminous bridge. The authors concluded it was “the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far” ,M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. Gutierrez, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2002, 390, pp. L15-18. The higher redshift for the quasar, Arp maintains, is due to it being newly-formed from the much older galaxy. The same is true for galaxies NGC2775 and NGC2777, which, contrary to conventional wisdom proposing they were merging, is an example, according to Arp, that the former produced the latter, which was confirmed by the fact that the latter had no metal in its spectral lines as well as a much higher redshift than the former. In addition, the galaxies were connected by an “umbilical cord of neutral hydrogen” (Halton Arp, Seeing Red, Apeiron, Montreal, 1998, p. 103).)

In regards to the geocentric question, the battle between the Big Bang theorists and the followers of Halton Arp leaves geocentrism at worst in a neutral position and at best drawing support from both sides of the aisle. On the one hand, Big Bang theorists are more or less caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place, since, as pointed out by Arp, they have created the same “Copernican dilemma” that we saw earlier with the evidence from gamma-ray bursters. As Arp states in critique of the Big Bang theory: “For supposed recession velocities of quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment.” In other words, regardless whether quasars are at cosmological distances, the fact that all the quasars are moving away from us at the same speed (as measured by the redshift-distance relation) means that Earth is precisely in the center of the dispersion. On the other hand, Arp has created his own Copernican dilemma, since, as Varshni concluded 30 years ago, quantized redshifts show irrefutable evidence of Earth’s centrality. Hence, whether redshift is cosmological or intrinsic, today’s scientists have no escape from geocentrism.


As for Tifft and company, if there are any claims to the contrary, they simply are far and few between. Napier and Guthrie repeated Tifft's results in 1991, with precisely the same periodicity found by Tifft. So astounding were Napier's and Guthrie's results of the 89 galaxies they studied when they submitted them to Astronomy and Astrophysics that the editors asked them to repeat the studies with other galaxies. This Napier and Guthrie did with 117 additional galaxies, with precisely the same periodicity as the original 89 galaxies (Reference in "Galileo Was Wrong"). So here we have over 200 galaxies with the same periodicity, and which are not in the same galaxy-quasar pairing investigated by the 2dF survey.

Moreover, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (headed by Max Tegmark), after gathering the data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe of 2001 which analyzed the distribution of the CMBR, mapped out the whole universe. Here was his concluding comment: "Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center." (Reference in Galileo Was Wrong).

P.S. the quote from Tegmark is available at http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/wmap3.html

I am not claiming Mark Tegmark believes in Geocentrism. After the above quote, he states:

This censorship is frustrating, since if we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe.

Clearly a statement of his faith in the Big Bang (not an observation). Some claim the same effect for resolving the Corpenican dilemna.

[Metricyard]

Ok, I've just read this whole thread 3 times. Where in the world is this going?

And could someone explain to me what this passage "laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star" in the post above means? It's in the Red Shift Quantization section.

I didn't know that there was such things a atomic spieces. Execept for Godzilla of course.

Totally lost here.

[trth_skr]

Metricyard says:

And could someone explain to me what this passage "laser action in certain atomic species in the expanding envelope of a star" in the post above means? It's in the Red Shift Quantization section.

Exactly! That is what a lot of scientists said when Varshni tried back tracking on the observation which appeared to put earth at the center of the universe.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Too many word games here for my taste.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Speaking of which ... ATP, is it possible for you to provide a straight answer?

Yes, of course.

Could you possibly stop the out of context quoting?

?? this is a serious charge, I hope you can explain it.

For my part: No, as I defined Geocentrism, it is not compatible with physical evidence.

There is no evidence that the accessible universe has a center or can have a center. The Earth is not at such a center.

There is no evidence against it, that's the point. That's why general relativity is said to be valid, yet, in the large picture.

[Astronomy]

It doesn't say that you can't distinguish between the systems.

Sure it does. All reference frames are equivalent in GR.

Um, that's not distinguishing between frames.

From an absolute reference frame they would look different, but GR posits there is no absolute reference frame. We could make models, and the models would look different, but models are referenced to an absolute reference frame (whioch per GR does not exist).

Right, so geocentrists deny GR. Therefore they should not refer to it to back up their arguments.

Okhams Razor (and related statements) is not science and is countered by other philosophical principles. See Mario Bunge, The Myth of Simplicity (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1963).

Ockham's razor has worked historically in science. See any science philosophy text. The simplest idea is always the best one to use until you can show a more complex one correct. Since you can't show geocentrism correct, it is not the best idea to use.

Please, if you can point to a theory that fails the above, tell me about it.

[Yorkshireman]

That being said, GR cannot and has not disproved Geocentrism (and cannot by virtues of its own principles).

You cannot disprove what has not been proved. Disprove my theory that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.

I am studying the Biblical and Church side of the issue also. The literal Bible does appear to be Geocentric, and the Church Fathers were all Geocentrists (even arguing against the Greeks who supported heliocentrism long before Corpenicus). This does give me a reason to consider Geocentrism, yes, but if there were a clear reason to reject it I would consider that, also. So far, I cannot see one, so I see no reason to reject Geocentrism outright.

At last, we have your agenda. It only took three pages to get to it.

Now, can you anwer these please:

Do you believe that GR is the best explanation of physics to date, or not?
Do you believe that the Earth is a preferred reference frame for the whole universe?
How do you reconcile these two?
If so, why Earth? Instead of, say, an as-yet undiscovered planet orbiting a average star in a galaxy somewhere in the Virgo cluster?

[worzel]

GR is formulated specifically with an acentric model of the universe. Therefor, it MUST reject any idea of an actual real center. IF we had a complete model of the universe, we could transform coordinates to any point in that universe, and describe the observations (kinetics) and dynamics (forces) seen / felt at that point. We could pick a fixed earth. All observations would be what we see (they must be, this is more basic than GR or SR, it is mathematics). All forces would be describable as coming from the rest of the universe (e.g., Thirring).

This does not prove Geocentricity, but says that if the assumption of GR is wrong, andd the earth actually is a center, GR itself cannot say it is not, except by pointing to its assumptions.

But this is quite different to saying that GR is compatible with Geocentrism. If, as you say, GR assumes there can be no meaningful center then all the evidence in favour of GR is evidence in favour of its assumptions and is therefore evidence against Geocentrism. For there to even be any meanning to "the center of the universe" GR would have to be falsified.

[N C More]

But this is quite different to saying that GR is compatible with Geocentrism. If, as you say, GR assumes there can be no meaningful center then all the evidence in favour of GR is evidence in favour of its assumptions and is therefore evidence against Geocentrism. For there to even be any meanning to "the center of the universe" GR would have to be falsified.

Finally, something that really makes sense. Thanks, worzel


As for this:

N C More wrote:

Too many word games here for my taste.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I'm quite aware that I'm not highly educated in the areas of physics and cosmology. However, as worzel just pointed out clear, straightforward, informative statements can go a long way in making concepts understood.

A perfect example of this is Jay Utah. Jay's Clavius site is very "user friendly" and if you don't understand something he'll E-mail you and try to clear things up (I know this for a fact). Maksutov's Capella example in the last geocentrism thread was highly informative as well and he's more than happy to try and make his points very clear.

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)? Now, I'm not talking about a heliocentric model of the universe here, I think I've made that very clear. I'm not arguing against GR and I'm not "pro" heliocentrism (or any other model of the solar system for that matter). I'd just like an explanation for the model that I see JPL and Cornell Univ.(and others) using. If no one knows the answer to this then just up and say so and I'll take my "hammer" and depart.

[Yorkshireman]

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)?

My take on this - it's just plain easier to understand the heliocentric model, with planets moving in clearly defined ellipses round the Sun. Given the choice of the conventional heliocentric solar system diagram, and some of the alternatives, which seems more elegant and simpler to understand? Which is more easily expressible through mathematics?

I'd love to see the famous Voyager1/2 flight path diagram transformed into an Earth-centric Solar System. I suspect it would make me dizzy!

[N C More]

My take on this - it's just plain easier to understand the heliocentric model, with planets moving in clearly defined ellipses round the Sun. Given the choice of the conventional heliocentric solar system diagram, and some of the alternatives, which seems more elegant and simpler to understand? Which is more easily expressible through mathematics?

It seems that the explanation is probably just an application of Occam's razor. From your link I can see that the conventional model is far simpler in design and understanding. As far as mathematics, perhaps Maksutov can answer that one but I suspect it's the same answer.

[worzel]

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)?

My take on this - it's just plain easier to understand the heliocentric model, with planets moving in clearly defined ellipses round the Sun. Given the choice of the conventional heliocentric solar system diagram, and some of the alternatives, which seems more elegant and simpler to understand? Which is more easily expressible through mathematics?

I'd love to see the famous Voyager1/2 flight path diagram transformed into an Earth-centric Solar System. I suspect it would make me dizzy!

Agreed. Given that there aren't any massive bodies close enough to the solar system for us to notice their tidal effects, we can pretty much treat the solor system as a closed system and ignore everything else. The frame of reference that makes most sense to use would be the one where Netwons laws are most accurate (because they're easier). That would be the one where the center of gravity is stationary.

[A Thousand Pardons]

As for this:

N C More wrote:

Too many word games here for my taste.

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I'm quite aware that I'm not highly educated in the areas of physics and cosmology. However, as worzel just pointed out clear, straightforward, informative statements can go a long way in making concepts understood.

And it would be nice if the conversations were straightforward, and direct, instead of tossing off accusations of word games. Sometimes, the questions aren't so clear either.

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)?

You've been shown various examples, but you've rejected them as not qualified. It's not easy to understand someone else's personal qualifications, without an open dialogue from both sides.

[ Now, I'm not talking about a heliocentric model of the universe here, I think I've made that very clear.

Right. So, in other words, all other non-heliocentric models are not qualified. After all, "helio" means "solar" so when you ask why all the solar systems are heliocentric, you are essentially forcing the answer. That's not fair when the issue is the use of other reference frames in general--and the use of other reference frames is widespread. What point is there in asking "why is a sun model used for the sun system?"

[Astronomy]

I've asked the question (repeatedly), why doesn't NASA (and the major university astronomy departments that I've seen) depict and utilize various models for the solar system (I've yet to find a major university that doesn't show a heliocentric model of the solar system)?

Because the center of mass/momentum frame is the one chosen in most of physics as being the most useful. The question isn't really an astronomy question, it's a math question. The mathematics of the center of mass/momentum frame is easier to handle than the others. For the solar system, that frame is the heliocentric model.

As to why you don't see the geocentric model, you do! It's shown in most astronomy texts under Ptolemy. Ptolemy's model, with careful additions, can fully describe the observed kinematics of the solar system (but not the dynamics). The geocentric model is seen all the time in the form of sky-charts as well.

[N C More]

You've been shown various examples, but you've rejected them as not qualified. It's not easy to understand someone else's personal qualifications, without an open dialogue from both sides.

I'm not rejecting any examples as I'm not qualified to make such a determination. This doesn't change the fact that when I go to JPL or to Cornell University they are using a "sun centered" (if that's the proper description then I'm happy to use it) model for the solar system. Also, I wasn't aware that one needed to post "qualifications" here in order to ask questions or engage in dialogue but I'll be glad to oblige. I have a ** in Biology and a Masters in Education. I think this qualifies me as "literate" but obviously not a expert in physics or cosmology.

It's now a moot point as Yorkshireman has given an answer that satisfies what I have observed on JPL and other sites.

[worzel]

Also, I wasn't aware that one needed to post "qualifications" here in order to ask questions or engage in dialogue

I don't remember anyone saying you do, I'd better shutup if that's the case

[trth_skr]

Yorkshireman says:

You cannot disprove what has not been proved. Disprove my theory that there is a teapot orbiting the Sun.

True. What has been proven? There is a sun- we can observe it. It appears to be revolving around the earth. Other theories say, no, the earth is revolving (and translating). The cornerstone of our cosmology says neither is true or false. Using simplicity arguments only, most people choose the latter (heliocentric). I would posit that if God wanted the earth at the center of the universe, Okham's Razor would have to choose the Geocentric situation. But that is philosophising.


Yorkshireman asks:

Do you believe that GR is the best explanation of physics to date, or not?

I am wary of the postulates of acentrism and constant speed of light. Since motives seem to be an issue, Einstein's biographer (Einstein, Life and Times, Ronald W. Clark) indicates that Einstein [incorrectly] interpreted the results of the Michelson Morley experiments as null (there were actually some small positve resuls- less than expected). He was faced with two choices (similar to Varshni w/ quantization of redshifts, the Corpenican dilemnna, etc.):

1. Accept the earth was standing still (implying geocentrism)
2. Eliminate aether (and thus an absolute reference frame).

He chose the latter. Now we have relativity (no absolutes). We cannot even say the solar system is helio or geocentric in a real way. The funny thing is that modern science has snuck aether back in again- dark matter, dark energy, space foam, quintressence... Is the absolute around the corner again? Another funny thing is modern science is trying to posit the CMB as an absolute reference (inertial reference). Scientists really want an absolute to measure from.

Yorkshire asks:

Do you believe that the Earth is a preferred reference frame for the whole universe?

I believe it is a possibililty that the earth is the physical center of the universe.

He asks:

How do you reconcile these two?

I think I already explained that I am trying to point out what a pickle relativity has gotten us into. I guess it makes it possible to model the cosmos, but it limits what we can say about it. I also wanted to point out that Geocentrism has not been eliminated as a real possibility by current science, precisely because based on its own rules, it cannot. The Lense-Thirring effect (frame dragging) offers areal (though relativistic) explanation for a Geocentric universe (see the opening messagfe of this thread); though because I am suspicous of the foundations of GR, I cannot hang my hat on it. I wonder if Lense-Thirring could be reformulated without GR?

He asks:

If so, why Earth? Instead of, say, an as-yet undiscovered planet orbiting a average star in a galaxy somewhere in the Virgo cluster?

I am motivated (oh my God- motivation) by my beliefs to look in the Geocentric direction and see if it is possible. Observations do support it; though they can be explained away, but not with other observations, only with more [of the same] theory.

When Max Tegmark says he sees the earth in the center of the universe, this is an observation. When he says, but if we could see further we would see some other effect of the big bang, he is stating his faith in a theory. What if the universe is no where as big as scientists estimate? What if redshift is not the measuring stick scientists take it to be? These points are and can all be contested. The biggest issue is really relativism or the existence of an absolute (earth and / or aether). We have chosen relativism for the last 100 years. Would you in any way be suprised if that changed in the next? I wouldn't.

[trth_skr]

Astronomy says:

Because the center of mass/momentum frame is the one chosen in most of physics as being the most useful. The question isn't really an astronomy question, it's a math question. The mathematics of the center of mass/momentum frame is easier to handle than the others. For the solar system, that frame is the heliocentric model.

As to why you don't see the geocentric model, you do! It's shown in most astronomy texts under Ptolemy. Ptolemy's model, with careful additions, can fully describe the observed kinematics of the solar system (but not the dynamics). The geocentric model is seen all the time in the form of sky-charts as well.

Yes, and a fixed earth model is often used to launch earth orbit sattelites (i.e., GPS). Obviously for interplanetary launches, one would want a planet centric or solar centric model.