Bullets labeled "Geocentrism"

[George]

Thought ya'll might wanta establish a quick bullet list for improved sharp-shooting. [Please note the blue is for additions not in the original post, italics for corrections]

[Note: Some of the following arguments may not apply to every version of Geocentrism. The Aristotle/Ptolemaic system, for example, did not allow for a rotating Earth, yet this is accepted in other geocentrism models.]

Arguments Against Geocentrism:

Aristotle/Ptolemaic version:

● Sunspots - Galileo found sunspots which he demonstrated were not shadows from planetary transits. This damaged the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system of perfection.

● Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system which has Venus between the sun and Earth, thus it can not show a gibbous phase.

● Magnitude variation of Venus - The apparent size of Venus varies. It is large during it’s crescent phase and smaller during it’s gibbous phase. The size (angular area) increases by as much as 36 times in area. This minimizes the change in apparent brightness of Venus. In Ptolemys model, Venus is between us and the Sun causing Venus to always appear in a crescent phase. Thus, the brightness change should be close to 36 times, or a magnitude change of 3.9. However, the observed magnitude change is only 0.75. [see Edit 2 note below]

● Venus has a superior conjunction - Geocentrism can not account for Venus going behind the Sun, which it does. [No transit is observable during this time.] Only inferior conjunction is allowable in Geocentrism.

● The Mountains on the Moon - Galileo, once again, showed imperfection in the heavens.

● Comets - These objects moved through the spheres, as established in the Aristotle system, which should not be possible. (Another Galileo discovery).

● Moons of Jupiter - Galileo found moons orbiting another body (Jupiter). Thus damaging the perfect spheres philosophy inherent in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. If smaller objects orbit a larger Jupiter, maybe Earth could orbit the larger Sun.

● Coriolis Effect - A rotating Earth is the only explanation for this. Therefore, the Earth is not fixed.

● Revolving Universe - The universe can not conceivably revolve around the Earth in 24 hours.

● Rotation Rate Variations - Millisecond variations have been found in the rotation rates based on seasonal mass distribution.

● Doppler Results - Radar measurments of the speed of Mars are far less than the travel rate necessary to go around the Earth each day.


Revised Tycho Brahe Geocentrism:
[Planets orbit Sun which orbits a rotating fixed Earth:] [The above arguments do reflect the idea that imperfection is obvious. Also, smaller bodies do orbit larger bodies (e.g. moons of other planets) which suggests the smaller Earth might do the same.] [Note: The Tycho model, and a "Modified Tychonic" model (Baum), is based on a non-rotating Earth]

● Stellar Parallax - When it was not observed due to lack of technology and imagination, it (or lack thereof) supported Geocentrism. Since parallax is clearly observed, the Earth must oscillate as in an orbit (and no longer stationary).

● Meteors - More meteors are observed after midnite than before due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun.

● Newton’s Laws - Objects will revolve around a barycenter and the less massive ones will exhibit a larger orbit. Refined further by Einstein.

● Doppler Shift - A revolving Earth will move toward and, later, away from any given star. This will create a frequency shift in the light observed.

● Stellar Aberration - Although the Earth is traveling at only 1/10000 the speed of light, it is enough to produce elliptical paths of stars. [More.... here ]

● Cosmic Microwave Dipole - The Earth's motion in space causes slight, but measurable, shift in frequency in the CMB appearance (Doppler).

● Galactic rotations - Similar to the moons of Jupiter argument. Rotations are throughout the heavens and our system, Sol, is revolving around the Milky Way's center.

● Orbital Retrograde - [Planets appear to change their direction of orbital travel.] This is explained with great difficulty in geocentrism but easily with the Copernican model. [I suspect today’s much higher resolutions of planetary orbits would make a geocentrism model impossible but, hopefully, someone will illuminate this issue for us.]

● Relativity Contradiction - "... to say geocentrism isn't wrong , you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise." - The BA. There is a strong element of self-centeredness (pun accidental) that is contrary to the moral fountain from which they [claim to] drink.

● Causality - This idea is the basis of the prior bullets. It asks why should we accept a frame, geocentrism, which does such a poor job of explaining what is observed, when other frames do not suffer from this problem? It demands reasons for the effects observed, asking - "what is the cause of these strange behaviors?". If there is not reasonable explanation, maybe it is more reasonable to choose another "valid" frame of reference which does not suffer from anomalies.

GLOSSARY here.


Am I close? What am I missing?

[Note: I have moved this from GA as it belongs here]

[Geocentrism is in no way related to Georgecentrism as this model failed me after suffering consequences of parental abuse long ago. :wink: In better words, I am just an average guy here so please incorporate your wisdom to make this something useful for all.]

[Note 2: Edited to remove the apparent size of Venus as an argument as hhE09'1 has shown Venus has the same size variation regardless of model, although Copernicus did use this as an argument in his Revolutionibus]

[Ari Jokimaki]

Is rotation of the Earth really something that geocentrists argue against? It seems to me that it shouldn't be that big deal, as long as Earth stays at the center of the universe.

[Enzp]

I don't know why Venus couldn't have phases, after all if the sun is over there and Venus over here, regardless of what orbits what, Venus will have a phase appearance in that case.

I think your points dwell too much on disproving perfection in the universe. So the moon has mountains, that won't convince them as to where it orbits, besides, the moon DOES orbit the earth. Cross that one off. Same with sunspots. Geocentrists will accept that the sun has sunspots, but that doesn't speak to whether it orbits the earth or vice versa.

Stellar paralax? So the celectial sphere wobbles a bit as it spins around the earth.

Timing of meteorites? That is just the direction they come from.

Jupiters moon? So what? Giant Jupiter has moons around it. So it shows that in some cases smaller things orbit larger, but the earth has a special place in the cosmos - the center - so it reacts differently than the lesser things in the heavens.

Your Doppler light freq shsift? Obviously that is caused by that same wobble in the heavens.

Geocentrists are not empiricists, you don't get anywhere arguing with them as if they were.

You left out retrograde orbits, but even there, it is forces we just do not understand as far as geocentrists are concerned.

[N C More]

Nice bunch of bullets you have there, George. There's only one thing that you're missing. You see, the geocentrists have latched onto a great "bullet proof vest".

It's called *relativity*.

[Fram]

Well, you can have a relativity bullet.
* If you take the Earth as the centre of the universe because relativity says that that is valid, then you also have to admit that any other place is just as valid.
And to be precise, the Earth can not be the center, as it is to big. The center of the earth can be the center, or an attom in my eye, but not a whole earth, that's much too imprecise (it's not even a perfect sphere).

Someone with better English writing skills should probably rewrite this...

Oh, and in your OP, the italics have disappeared (due to the moving of the post, probably).

[Celestial Mechanic]

Is rotation of the Earth really something that geocentrists argue against? It seems to me that it shouldn't be that big deal, as long as Earth stays at the center of the universe.

The problem is that if you allow one type of motion (rotation), then you must allow the other (revolution). The Geocentrist is thus compelled to argue against both in order to maintain their literal interpretation of Scripture.

[Waarthog]

My smoking gun as I have posted before is the need in modern aircraft navigation systems to account for the rotation of the earth in the navigation solution. This is not much needed on short hops, but long distance flights this is a necessity. I wonder how the GC crowd explains away the equations and factors we use in our FMS boxes for "Earth-Rate". If the Earth did NOT move, why do we put this in? If just for show, then why does it work?

Thought ya'll might wanta establish a quick bullet list for improved sharp-shooting.

Arguments Against Geocentrism:
...

● Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated crescent phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. However, allowing the other planets to rotate around the Sun, and the Earth centralized, was a possible modification to Geocentrism.
...
Am I close? What am I missing?

[italics for the additions]
[Note: I have moved this from GA as it belongs here]

Whoa ... In the Ptolemaic system, the only phase Venus can show is a crescent since it is always closer than the Sun. The existance of gibbous phases was proof that Venus could be farther from Earth than the Sun and hence was support for a heliocentric (or the Tychonic) system.

[Disinfo Agent]

Thought ya'll might wanta establish a quick bullet list for improved sharp-shooting.

Arguments Against Geocentrism:

? Sunspots - Galileo found sunspots which he demonstrated were not shadows from planetary transits. This damaged the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system of perfection.

[...]

? The Mountains on the Moon - Galileo, once again, showed imperfection in the heavens.

That was a powerful argument against the Ptolemaic system such as it was understood in the 17th century, back in the day, but I would guess that modern geocentrists see things a bit differently. I'm sure they're not foolish enough to still maintain that the celestial orbs are perfect spheres. Any small telescope--heck, even the naked eye--would disprove that.
It's really a Neogeocentrism we're dealing with.

? Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated crescent phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. However, allowing the other planets to rotate around the Sun, and the Earth centralized, was a possible modification to Geocentrism.

I suspect that G.R. can get past any problems with phases...

? Comets - These objects moved through the spheres, as established in the Aristotle system, which should not be possible. (Another Galileo discovery).

It was a blow to the geocentric system, such as it was formulated in the early 17th century, because according to that system the planets were "glued" to solid cristalline spheres. But, again, do modern geocentrists still conceive of the planets that way?

? Moons of Jupiter - Galileo found moons orbiting another body (Jupiter). Thus damaging the perfect spheres philosophy inherent in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. If smaller objects orbit a larger Jupiter, maybe Earth could orbit the larger Sun.

The problem with the moons of Jupiter, I think, was that they showed that not everything in the solar system revolved around the Earth. But, if a model where all the planets revolve around the Earth is valid, then it can be said that Jupiter's moons do revolve around the Earth, in the same way that our own Moon revolves around the Sun in a heliocentric model.

? Stellar Parallax - When it was not observed due to lack of technology and imagination, it (or lack thereof) supported Geocentrism. Since parallax is clearly observed, the Earth must oscillate as in an orbit (and no longer stationary).

? Coriolis Effect - A rotating Earth is the only explanation for this. Therefore, the Earth is not fixed.

Those were the classical, Newtonian arguments for heliocentricity. But the universe is not Newtonian...

? Revolving Universe - The universe can not conceivably revolve around the Earth in 24 hours.

Apparently, according to G.R., it can. 8-[

Edited to correct dates.

[George]

Thought ya'll might wanta establish a quick bullet list for improved sharp-shooting.

Arguments Against Geocentrism:
...

● Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated crescent phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. However, allowing the other planets to rotate around the Sun, and the Earth centralized, was a possible modification to Geocentrism.
...
Am I close? What am I missing?

[italics for the additions]
[Note: I have moved this from GA as it belongs here]

Whoa ... In the Ptolemaic system, the only phase Venus can show is a crescent since it is always closer than the Sun. The existance of gibbous phases was proof that Venus could be farther from Earth than the Sun and hence was support for a heliocentric (or the Tychonic) system.

You're right on the money! Thanks for the nicely stated argument.

Another nice addition to the gibbious phase is the variation in angular size of Venus from gibious to crescent. These two observations can not be explained unless Venus orbits the Sun. [I will edit accordingly]

[jfribrg]

As was alluded to elsewhere, the movements in the solar system can be mathematically explained using a geocentric system. You basically do a coordinate transformation from heliocentric to geocentric and you have a consistent mathematical basis. You would have to invent some ficticious forces (in effect a more complicated variant of centrifugal force), but the result is a consistent framework that explains all the movements in the solar system. Even the precession of equinoxes of Mercury could be explained if you incorporate GR into your framework. The superior conjunctions of Venus and Mercury can be explained by saying that the Sun and Venus have eccentric trajectories (they wouldn't be orbits, but they would be predicatable) around the Earth. The rotation of the Earth from its place at the center of the universe can explain the apparent motion of the stars and galaxies. As has been pointed out previously, the key here is geocentrism, not the ancient's view of the cosmos, which included geocentrism.


Obviously the Earth does experience a centripedal solar acceleration throughout the year. Is it possible to measure this? The Foucault pendulum can demonstrate the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Could another device (which is far more accurate) demonstrate the Earth's acceleration through the year? My first thought is that the tidal influence of the moon would overwhelm the measurements, but then again maybe not.

[Disinfo Agent]

Well, you can have a relativity bullet.
* If you take the Earth as the centre of the universe because relativity says that that is valid, then you also have to admit that any other place is just as valid.
And to be precise, the Earth can not be the center, as it is to big. The center of the earth can be the center, or an attom in my eye, but not a whole earth, that's much too imprecise (it's not even a perfect sphere).

A subtle point:

We are on the side of the mainstream, so we must accept the consequences of Relativity, as much as they may go against our intuitions and education. Geocentrists, however, are against the mainstream, so they don't have to believe in Relativity.

All they need to do is note that since we are limited by Relativity, we can't prove them wrong. But they don't have to take Relativity as the last word on the matter.

[George]

My smoking gun as I have posted before is the need in modern aircraft navigation systems to account for the rotation of the earth in the navigation solution. This is not much needed on short hops, but long distance flights this is a necessity. I wonder how the GC crowd explains away the equations and factors we use in our FMS boxes for "Earth-Rate". If the Earth did NOT move, why do we put this in? If just for show, then why does it work?

I am unclear on this. Are you talking of the Coriolis Effect?

[George]

I don't know why Venus couldn't have phases, after all if the sun is over there and Venus over here, regardless of what orbits what, Venus will have a phase appearance in that case.

My post on this has gone through a few phases of its own :wink: . Hopefully, the revision makes sense now.

Stellar paralax? So the celectial sphere wobbles a bit as it spins around the earth.

It "wobbles" about 300,000,000 km and is called an orbit.

Timing of meteorites? That is just the direction they come from.

But it happens year round from every constellation!

Jupiters moon? So what? Giant Jupiter has moons around it. So it shows that in some cases smaller things orbit larger, but the earth has a special place in the cosmos - the center - so it reacts differently than the lesser things in the heavens.

See Disinfo Agent's post above.

Your Doppler light freq shsift? Obviously that is caused by that same wobble in the heavens.

Again, it requires a degree of wobble identical to the orbit diameter (for the known masses which determine the orbital velocity).

Geocentrists are not empiricists, you don't get anywhere arguing with them as if they were.

They should be. The original ones were. They evidence in the days B.C. favored geocentrism. No parallax observed, the atmosphere was not blown away with the Earth's proposed motion, objects did not fly off the Earth due to rotation, everything up there looked kinda perfect, everything seemed to rise and set nicely, there were only 5 or 6 thousand stars in the universe to revolve about us, etc. It seemed to make the most sense.

You left out retrograde orbits...

Ah yes, I did I forget that one. Thanks.

...but even there, it is forces we just do not understand as far as geocentrists are concerned.

Understanding is the goal of these threads.

[George]

As was alluded to elsewhere, the movements in the solar system can be mathematically explained using a geocentric system. You basically do a coordinate transformation from heliocentric to geocentric and you have a consistent mathematical basis.

This would make sense if it were just us and the sun. However, the phases, apparent size changes and obvious superior conjunctions of Venus (and Mercury for that matter) do not work mathematically in both systems, IMO.

You would have to invent some ficticious forces (in effect a more complicated variant of centrifugal force), but the result is a consistent framework that explains all the movements in the solar system.

Fictious forces can justify any imaginary model, probably. The world is not built on such things, however.

Even the precession of equinoxes of Mercury could be explained if you incorporate GR into your framework.

It is the only thing I know that does explain the orbital precession accurately.

The superior conjunctions of Venus and Mercury can be explained by saying that the Sun and Venus have eccentric trajectories (they wouldn't be orbits, but they would be predicatable) around the Earth.

This appears to be more imgaination than explanation. The Copernican model fits it like a glove, however.

The rotation of the Earth from its place at the center of the universe can explain the apparent motion of the stars and galaxies.

Yes. I've improved my OP to allow this. However, the actual, and now apparent (thanks to astronomy) motions of the stars in our galaxy, and others, demonstrates large scale rotations around the center of galaxies. This can't be explained by Earth's rotation.

As has been pointed out previously, the key here is geocentrism, not the ancient's view of the cosmos, which included geocentrism.

Tweaking models is certainly allowable. [I can hardly get one post out right the first time ]

Obviously the Earth does experience a centripedal solar acceleration throughout the year. Is it possible to measure this? The Foucault pendulum can demonstrate the rotation of the Earth on its axis. Could another device (which is far more accurate) demonstrate the Earth's acceleration through the year? My first thought is that the tidal influence of the moon would overwhelm the measurements, but then again maybe not.

Good question. Maybe someone will know something on this one.

[worzel]

We are on the side of the mainstream, so we must accept the consequences of Relativity, as much as they may go against our intuitions and education. Geocentrists, however, are against the mainstream, so they don't have to believe in Relativity.

All they need to do is note that since we are limited by Relativity, we can't prove them wrong. But they don't have to take Relativity as the last word on the matter.

Excellent point Disinfo!

You would have to invent some ficticious forces (in effect a more complicated variant of centrifugal force), but the result is a consistent framework that explains all the movements in the solar system.

Fictious forces can justify any imaginary model, probably. The world is not built on such things, however.

An attack on fictious forces is similar to an attack on conventional science being built merely on theories. Physicists like to use terminology that downplays their staggering success.

It isn't just a coordinate transformation. Sure, I could describe the positions of all the bodies in the solar system (and beyond) from a geocentric frame of reference even in a purely Newtonian way. But GR predicts the suspension of geostationary satellites, the coriolis effect, the foucault pendulum, etc. as a result of the universe rotating daily around a stationary earth: somthing a coordinate transofrmation in Newtonian physics does not.

[Enzp]

George, you are explaining back to me that which I already know, praching to the choir. I am not a geocentrist. Just taking their position in the face of your bullets.

I said geocentrists are not empiricist and your response was they should be. Fine. But they are not. Whatever they should be, they are not, so any arguments need to face THEM if it is to be useful in convincing THEM.

A few months back we went back and forth for days and days with a geocentrist who just would not accept the falsehood of his idea that if the earth rotated, then there would have to be a 1000mph wind at the equator, and airplanes taking off would run into it and wind up way behind where they started.

That is who your arguments have to convince. Not us. And that was the point of all my objections.

[TravisM]

Devil's advocacy. <- Not mad, just the devil. :P

[Ari Jokimaki]

Has any spacecraft in outer solar system took pictures of Earth going around the Sun? I remember that some time ago there was a "portrait of solar system" published, but has this been done with regular time intervals?

[A Thousand Pardons]

Fictious forces can justify any imaginary model, probably. The world is not built on such things, however.

In general relativity, gravity can be considered a fictitious force, so if we go with the accretion theory of planetary formation, yes, the world was built with it

[N C More]

Has any spacecraft in outer solar system took pictures of Earth going around the Sun? I remember that some time ago there was a "portrait of solar system" published, but has this been done with regular time intervals?

Yes, Voyager 1. For some reason, I get the impression that direct observation doesn't seem to "count" for much in this debate.

[jfribrg]

Has any spacecraft in outer solar system took pictures of Earth going around the Sun? I remember that some time ago there was a "portrait of solar system" published, but has this been done with regular time intervals?

I do recall a picture of Earth with the moon barely visible. It was taken from one of the spacecraft that are way out there (perhaps Casini). You would need a whole year's worth of pictures including the Sun to demonstrate your point, but it still wouldn't convince any geocentrists. I think they would point out that sometimes the Sun is closer to the camera than the Earth and other times it is farther than the Earth, and therefore it proves the geocentrist argument that the sun revolves around the Earth. This gets back to my point that you can have a consistent mathematical geocentrist framework if you allow that the Earth rotates in its distinguished position at the center of the Universe. The flaw is in the dynamics of the system. GR explains how everything in the solar system works on the macro scale. Geocentrists insist that dynamics is irrelevant and that the mechanics of the system should be restricted to kinematics. If you want some smoking gun bullets, get a couple to explain why dynamics is far more important than kinematics.

As was pointed out by Enzp, George is replying to these posts as if we are all geocentrists here. I'm not and I don't think that anyone who has contributed to this thread is either. The point is that these bullets need to address the contemporary geocentrists arguments, not the ancients' geocentrist arguments. For example, imperfection in the heavenly bodies has nothing to do with geocentrism. That is in effect a Red Herring. I don't see any need to use the same fallacious tactics that the anti-scientists thrive on. If we do, then we are truly no better than them.
I personally have never met a geocentrist. I doubt if there is more than a handful. I wonder if the geocentrists who show up here are actually just law students getting practice in arguing positions that they know are ridiculous. Such a skill can come in real handy in a courtroom.

[Waarthog]

I am unclear on this. Are you talking of the Coriolis Effect?

In a sense, yes. I am talking about the correction in the navigation solution within an inertial guidance system for the moving Earth. When you fly a transpolar route, your landing location is moving in the opposite direction as your departure location and continues to move over time as you head toward it. Depending on both the initial and destination latitudes, its even moving at a different speed. So if the nav system has inertial reference units, it has to compensate for the apparent change of position. Even if the plane will follows the proper ground track, if left to its own devices and uncompensated, the inertial nav system will show as being off course since the gyros that it uses to calculate position are fixed "in space" and would otherwise aim for where "in space" the destination was at the time of departure. Since the equipment I test uses a "blended" navigation solution from the GPS, the inertial units, and the radio navigation equipment, we need to take Earth's rotation rate into account.

[ToSeek]

Has any spacecraft in outer solar system took pictures of Earth going around the Sun? I remember that some time ago there was a "portrait of solar system" published, but has this been done with regular time intervals?

Yes, Voyager 1. For some reason, I get the impression that direct observation doesn't seem to "count" for much in this debate.

Some geocentrists will tell you that all NASA space missions are faked.

[Ari Jokimaki]

You would need a whole year's worth of pictures including the Sun to demonstrate your point, but it still wouldn't convince any geocentrists. I think they would point out that sometimes the Sun is closer to the camera than the Earth and other times it is farther than the Earth, and therefore it proves the geocentrist argument that the sun revolves around the Earth.

I was thinking that we could make quite convincing argument based on the movement of the background stars in that kind of picture series. If we would create a movie out of them centered on the Earth, background stars would go back and forth during the year. But if we would center our movie to the Sun, background stars wouldn't move (at least not much).

Another question is, if this would convince any hardcore geocentrist, I don't think anything would. They would probably do just what ToSeek says above.

[Captain Kidd]

My understanding of the Geocentric view of the universe is that everything revolves around the earth.

Looking outside the solar system, galaxy Abell 1835 IR1916 is 13,230,000,000 light years away. Assuming that its “orbit” of the earth makes a perfect circle, that returns a circumference of 8.313 x 10^10 light years or 4.88 x 10^23 miles. That’s quite a lot of ground to cover in 24 hours.

To make one revolution around the earth in 24 hours (again assuming a perfect circle), it would have to be traveling at 2.03 x 10^22 mph; or 3.03 x 10^14c.

To me that rules out the earth being the “true” center of the universe and everything revolving around it.

[A Thousand Pardons]

Looking outside the solar system,

You don't have to go outside the solar system to make that calculation work. To get a speed greater than c, we just need a distance R such that 2 x pi x R/24hr > c, or R > 300,000km x 24 x 60 x 60/2pi, so R > 4.1 trillion kilometers. I believe Neptune fits the bill, with just 0.1 trillion km to spare, even on its closest approach.

[jfribrg]

To make one revolution around the earth in 24 hours (again assuming a perfect circle), it would have to be traveling at 2.03 x 10^22 mph; or 3.03 x 10^14c.

To me that rules out the earth being the “true” center of the universe and everything revolving around it.

Only if you accept SR (and can explain it to the satisfaction of a person who has zero knowledge of math). Then they have their proof in Matthew 19:26 "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible".

[George]

You would have to invent some ficticious forces (in effect a more complicated variant of centrifugal force), but the result is a consistent framework that explains all the movements in the solar system.

Fictious forces can justify any imaginary model, probably. The world is not built on such things, however.

An attack on fictious forces is similar to an attack on conventional science being built merely on theories. Physicists like to use terminology that downplays their staggering success.

I don’t dispute the need for imaginary models with fictitious forces. It is science which must dive into imaginary realms in hopes of discovering new things. [I wonder if all scientific discoveries have not indeed had to travel this path?] However, the “world” I was referring to is the engineering world where things are made from functional tools invented by science. This helps justify the scrutiny science places on itself as it insists on questioning imaginary forces. Naturally, I am more comfortable with models that do not require fictitious forces. Please don’t let my doubt slow your pursut into the imaginary, as this is where the next discoveries will be found.

It isn't just a coordinate transformation. Sure, I could describe the positions of all the bodies in the solar system (and beyond) from a geocentric frame of reference even in a purely Newtonian way. But GR predicts the suspension of geostationary satellites, the coriolis effect, the foucault pendulum, etc. as a result of the universe rotating daily around a stationary earth: somthing a coordinate transofrmation in Newtonian physics does not.

I know other threads have engaged this topic so I will try to incorporate it here as I learn more of it. Quite interesting.

I said geocentrists are not empiricist and your response was they should be. Fine. But they are not. Whatever they should be, they are not, so any arguments need to face THEM if it is to be useful in convincing THEM.

My point was that originally they were empiricist, IMO. There really were more arguments, based on empirical information, which supported the model. This surprised me when I first understood it. I thought heliocentrism failed due to greater social/political/rhetorical strengths of those who preferred geocentrism.

Since you presented a few of THEIR arguments, I presented some of mine. [FWIW, I really did not think you, or anyone here, were accepting their views, only presenting them for argument sake.] I appreciate you presenting the arguments, BTW.

Fictious forces can justify any imaginary model, probably. The world is not built on such things, however.

In general relativity, gravity can be considered a fictitious force, so if we go with the accretion theory of planetary formation, yes, the world was built with it

. Yes, the chondrules rule! IMO, gravity is a term used to describe a very predictable and established behavior. The laws of Newton have been useable enough to build quite a world (not just the world itself ). The force of gravity may be fictitious under certain terms, but it’s behavior is not fictitious (whatever it might be turn out to be). This makes it useably fictitious vs. others which are not, currently, useable.

[George]

I found a post I remembered from the BA. I thought it was beautiful. I'd like your thoughts on how to structure this. Georgecentrism could be used as a tool to grasp the self-centeredness aspect of the idea, but my humor/edificiation is not alway beloved. :-?

What geocentrists are saying is that geocentrism is the one, true frame. Creationists must say that because that is what is says in the bible. Now pay attention here, because this is the important bit: to say geocentrism isn't wrong, you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is therefore self-contradictory.

Also, can't we denostrate the foolishness of the Brahe/geocentrism model in regards to its frame of reference? If you traveled out near Neptune, for instance, and stopped relative to Earth to begin measuring the motions of the planets and sun using Doppler, you would find with time that the sun does not move relative to your position (assuming circular solar orbit) but the planets, including Earth, do move. Wouldn't you have to build a spaceship that was constantly accelerating/decelerating to keep up with Earth in order to force measurements to match the Brahe/geocentrism model?

If the solar orbit of the observer is a problem, wouldn't it work from any place (except Earth)?