OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 21, 2014, 05:03:04 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Heliocentrism/Geocentrism Issue  (Read 4364 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,883


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #90 on: March 28, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.


Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2014, 08:46:37 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.


Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

I have no disagreement with this. You also have a valid statement if you decide that the center of the Milky Way is the center of the Universe as far as I am concerned based on my current state of knowledge about this..
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #92 on: March 28, 2014, 09:10:11 PM »

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

The one explanation I find is simply a superimposition of a rotating frame of reference on top of the real Newtonian model. That really comes under the heading of cheating, a violation of the basic Baconian precept to avoid introducing unnecessary entities. Of course, if you feel that geocentricism requires explanation, then it isn't "unnecessary", but since geocentrism isn't a phenomenon, I don't see the need to explain it.

And it isn't the "inspired canon of scripture" that you expect me to trust; it's your interpretation.

Quote
You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

I am unaware of whether any of the various luminiferous aether experiments have been carried out in space without using the earth as part of the baseline. Of course, if you don't believe in the aether, then the fact of whether the earth is or is not moving in relationship to it is not detectable.

Quote
Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

OK, I don't believe you. I'm not even going to bother to ask my father or the various people I know who actually do work at NASA whether they use geocentric coordinates because I don't need the "why do you want to know anyway?" questions, followed by the "why are you arguing with that idiot?" ridicule. But at any rate I don't really need to ask them, because I've programmed this sort of behavior. And like everyone else I worked from a heliocentric basis because the math is easier that way; if I wanted to work out the various bodies' positions with respect to the earth (or any other arbitrary object) I do the trig.

Quote
Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

No, they don't. I don't feel it's worth the trouble to work out whether it makes a difference, for objects going into earth orbit, if a launch occurs at noon or midnight. However, even for such launches they take the rotation of the earth into account; it's why launches generally head east after takeoff. For interplanetary launches they invariably work from a heliocentric basis, because that's what makes the math possible.

Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #93 on: March 28, 2014, 09:16:53 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




Fudge factor, indeed.  And possibly the most absurd and ridiculous in the history of science falsely so called.  It's the most gigantic and inane band-aid yet for the endless speculative lies.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #94 on: March 28, 2014, 09:19:44 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.

How do you know what you just said?

Quote

Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

Where do such images come from?  You realize that's not a photograph, right?
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #95 on: March 28, 2014, 09:31:00 PM »

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

The one explanation I find is simply a superimposition of a rotating frame of reference on top of the real Newtonian model. That really comes under the heading of cheating, a violation of the basic Baconian precept to avoid introducing unnecessary entities. Of course, if you feel that geocentricism requires explanation, then it isn't "unnecessary", but since geocentrism isn't a phenomenon, I don't see the need to explain it.

And it isn't the "inspired canon of scripture" that you expect me to trust; it's your interpretation.

Quote
You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

I am unaware of whether any of the various luminiferous aether experiments have been carried out in space without using the earth as part of the baseline. Of course, if you don't believe in the aether, then the fact of whether the earth is or is not moving in relationship to it is not detectable.

Quote
Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

OK, I don't believe you. I'm not even going to bother to ask my father or the various people I know who actually do work at NASA whether they use geocentric coordinates because I don't need the "why do you want to know anyway?" questions, followed by the "why are you arguing with that idiot?" ridicule. But at any rate I don't really need to ask them, because I've programmed this sort of behavior. And like everyone else I worked from a heliocentric basis because the math is easier that way; if I wanted to work out the various bodies' positions with respect to the earth (or any other arbitrary object) I do the trig.

Quote
Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

No, they don't. I don't feel it's worth the trouble to work out whether it makes a difference, for objects going into earth orbit, if a launch occurs at noon or midnight. However, even for such launches they take the rotation of the earth into account; it's why launches generally head east after takeoff. For interplanetary launches they invariably work from a heliocentric basis, because that's what makes the math possible.

I'm fine with whatever you do or don't do in regards to investigating the modern undercurrents of Tychonian geocentricity research.

And you expect others to adhere to YOUR interpretation of holy writ as allegory and from erroneous human perspective.  I'm also fine with that impasse, since I don't accept your interpretation.

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

The Church takes no interpretive position on the matter.  And if it does at this point in adamant favor of heliocentricity, I will leave and consider it an apostate declaration.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 09:33:42 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,440



« Reply #96 on: March 28, 2014, 10:42:01 PM »


Quote
My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.

How do you know what you just said?

Quote

Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

Where do such images come from?  You realize that's not a photograph, right?


Yes. It is a photograph and there are many that have been taken by telescopes such as the Hubble.  That is not the Milky Way (our own) Galaxy.  The post says that it's M83 which is in the constellation of Hydra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_83

There are plenty of photographs of galaxies and starts and more.  There's the Astronomy Picture of the Day site (APOD) http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2014, 11:13:21 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #98 on: March 29, 2014, 12:44:07 AM »

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.
Newton's laws are easily falsifiable as indicated previously.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #99 on: March 29, 2014, 01:13:56 AM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #100 on: March 29, 2014, 07:47:23 AM »

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

No, it's not in the realm of "factual" at all. It's just an argument on your part (I surmise) that you consider all the intermediate positions to be the same as the most extreme opposition to the position you claim to hold. The truth is that the whole range of intermediate positions is held, and that nobody actually holds to an absolute literalist position because scripture doesn't even do so with itself.

Furthermore, there is no distinction in the sky between a geocentric sun which halts in its orbit and a heliocentric earth which ceases to spin. Or to put it in other words, there is another way out of this entirely, which is to quit arguing with the text. One does not have to work out a mechanism for the miracles recounted in scripture; it is sufficient that they show the supernatural presence, power, and authority of the Lord. I do not accept your arrogation of interpretation of these as tests of faith in your system of interpretation, and as you say, your church doesn't accept that either. It's only d*mned Protestants who make up such tests, and while I am a d*mned Protestant, I'm not one of those Protestants. And assuming you actually are Antiochian, your church does not grant you the right to set up such a test. So why don't you go back to obeying your church and quit belaboring this topic?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 07:47:48 AM by Keble » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #101 on: March 29, 2014, 09:55:06 AM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #102 on: March 29, 2014, 10:01:23 AM »

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

No, it's not in the realm of "factual" at all. It's just an argument on your part (I surmise) that you consider all the intermediate positions to be the same as the most extreme opposition to the position you claim to hold. The truth is that the whole range of intermediate positions is held, and that nobody actually holds to an absolute literalist position because scripture doesn't even do so with itself.

Furthermore, there is no distinction in the sky between a geocentric sun which halts in its orbit and a heliocentric earth which ceases to spin. Or to put it in other words, there is another way out of this entirely, which is to quit arguing with the text. One does not have to work out a mechanism for the miracles recounted in scripture; it is sufficient that they show the supernatural presence, power, and authority of the Lord. I do not accept your arrogation of interpretation of these as tests of faith in your system of interpretation, and as you say, your church doesn't accept that either. It's only d*mned Protestants who make up such tests, and while I am a d*mned Protestant, I'm not one of those Protestants. And assuming you actually are Antiochian, your church does not grant you the right to set up such a test. So why don't you go back to obeying your church and quit belaboring this topic.

I see, so you are a Protestant.  That explains it.

I have set up no test.  I came to this thread and expressed my view and the reason for it.  It is you and all other heliocentrists who make it a test, not I.

I'm not the one who engages in fruitless and loveless condescension and ad hominem.  My Church has no position on the matter, but does not preclude me from taking such a position.

My only test would be if the Church actually takes such a position (which won't happen), and then it would be a sign of apostasy.  It's an irrelevant concern, since the Church will not be so foolish as Kabbalist Protestants and Latins, swayed by Atheistic religion of Empricism.

I merely responded to the topic and to the condescension of you and others, which I will now desist.  In the end, I couldn't care less about anything except faith, hope, and love.  Forgive me if the last of those has been lacking in my zeal for the first two on this issue.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #103 on: March 29, 2014, 10:13:29 AM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,443



« Reply #104 on: March 29, 2014, 11:59:19 AM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake. Saying "all I did was express my view" does not cut it as a response, and I infer from your postings that claims of ignorance of these principles are implausible.

From your first response to me you have made unsupportable assertions about the connection between other people's views of scripture and the accuracy of their cosmology. I am not constrained to think as you imply I do, not because I am a Protestant, but because I am a human being, and because your unstated logic is faulty to the core. Now that this issue has come to the fore you are dismissive and therefore evasive, and that's after the whole space travel nonsense in which you made flat and false statements.

Your recourse to an ad hominem I take as concession of the field.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #105 on: March 29, 2014, 02:35:48 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #106 on: March 29, 2014, 02:37:21 PM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake. Saying "all I did was express my view" does not cut it as a response, and I infer from your postings that claims of ignorance of these principles are implausible.

From your first response to me you have made unsupportable assertions about the connection between other people's views of scripture and the accuracy of their cosmology. I am not constrained to think as you imply I do, not because I am a Protestant, but because I am a human being, and because your unstated logic is faulty to the core. Now that this issue has come to the fore you are dismissive and therefore evasive, and that's after the whole space travel nonsense in which you made flat and false statements.

Your recourse to an ad hominem I take as concession of the field.

You take it wrong, then.  No concession from me whatsoever.  I simply leave you to your fallacies with no research on the matter beyond your indoctrination.  Just because Atheists have scultped a modern status quo from erroneous foundations, it doesn't supercede actual truth.

I've never been concerned with the futility of swaying others' opinions.  Just in representing that there is another position that most are oblivious to and won't entertain because of prelest and cognitive dissonance.

You've shown that very clearly, just as most others do and have.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #107 on: March 29, 2014, 02:47:05 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

All somebody needs to do is delineate exactly and precisely what gravity actually IS.  Isaac didn't know.  Nobody knows.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #108 on: March 29, 2014, 02:48:15 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2014, 02:50:17 PM »

 Just because Atheists have scultped a modern status quo from erroneous foundations, it doesn't supercede actual truth.
Show us a non-relativistic example  where Newton's laws are an erroneous foundation.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #110 on: March 29, 2014, 02:54:30 PM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake.

And if you'll read the thread title and the OP, you'll see I posted accordingly rather than "out of controversial and contrarian opinion as an invitation for rejoinder or an act of agitation for its own sake".

Historically, heliocentricity is controversial and contrarian.  The rise of the religion of Empricism is what turned the tide.

You may not realize it, but your views are a belief system; and that goes to the very core of the heart (which biologically includes the limbic system and its neuro-chemical contributions to both cognition, volition, and emotion).
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2014, 03:02:57 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #112 on: March 29, 2014, 03:20:09 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
I don't see any support for denying Newton's laws of motion in the non-relativistic framework which is appropriate here.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2014, 04:14:03 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
I don't see any support for denying Newton's laws of motion in the non-relativistic framework which is appropriate here.

And I don't see any definition of what gravity IS, yet it's the alleged central fixture for those dynamics.  Just tell me what gravity is.  You can't.  No one can.  It's undefined as a force.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Moderated
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,699



WWW
« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2014, 05:00:52 PM »

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gravity?q=gravity

Okay, you're kidding, right?  Huh
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,637


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2014, 05:10:47 PM »


My dear biro, PPS has made up his mind. Don't confuse him with facts.   Wink
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2014, 05:17:20 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 05:20:29 PM »

Obviously, yes; he is creating problems where there are none. To prove heliocentrism all you need to know are Newton's laws and that gravity is the natural phenomenon whereby one body of mass attracts the other according to the inverse square law. To endorse geocentrism is like saying that when an apple falls to the ground, it is really not the apple that is moving, but it is the earth which is moving up and accelerating  toward the apple which remains stationary.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2014, 05:31:19 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,637


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2014, 05:33:15 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2014, 05:50:34 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink

Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2014, 05:54:55 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,637


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2014, 05:59:21 PM »


I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink

Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.

Armenia? That doesn't sound right. IIRC it's Elbonia.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 05:59:58 PM by LBK » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #123 on: March 29, 2014, 08:44:59 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #124 on: March 30, 2014, 01:20:36 AM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 

If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #125 on: March 30, 2014, 02:52:56 AM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 

If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #126 on: March 30, 2014, 10:45:27 AM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #127 on: March 30, 2014, 08:47:58 PM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
Warned
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,707



« Reply #128 on: March 30, 2014, 10:02:32 PM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).

You reject it.

Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.206 seconds with 65 queries.