geocentric Earth

[timedisplacement]

<p>first off let me say this is not my belief. A few days ago i received a brochure in the mail. The Main caption says "Have scientists been wrong. I looked at it I emailed this this person, who of course is a Christian, you know young earth, that kind of thing and because the Bible indicates&nbsp; the earth as unshakeable un movable, etc he has developed a geocentric model. My question to you is can we observe the Earth moving around the sun? How do you know for sure we are moving around the sun? He asked me to ask you this "ask them if "the covariance of relativity makes the geocentric and heliocentric models equally valid."&nbsp; We already know what<br />model most of them prefer, but this question does not commit them to either model and will reveal whether or not I have a point me to ask you this&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>&nbsp;Give me something so i can e-mail this guy. If he has his way we will be back in the dark ages</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>timedisplacement&nbsp;</p>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>first off let me say this is not my belief. A few days ago i received a brochure in the mail. The Main caption says "Have scientists been wrong. I looked at it I emailed this this person, who of course is a Christian, you know young earth, that kind of thing and because the Bible indicates&nbsp; the earth as unshakeable un movable, etc he has developed a geocentric model. My question to you is can we observe the Earth moving around the sun? How do you know for sure we are moving around the sun? He asked me to ask you this "ask them if "the covariance of relativity makes the geocentric and heliocentric models equally valid."&nbsp; We already know whatmodel most of them prefer, but this question does not commit them to either model and will reveal whether or not I have a point me to ask you this&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Give me something so i can e-mail this guy. If he has his way we will be back in the dark ages&nbsp;timedisplacement&nbsp; <br />Posted by timedisplacement</DIV><br /><br />It's quite easy to see that the earth moves around the sun if you look at the motions of the stars and planets.</p><p>There is no other way to explain the motion of what we see in the sky.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>first off let me say this is not my belief. A few days ago i received a brochure in the mail. The Main caption says "Have scientists been wrong. I looked at it I emailed this this person, who of course is a Christian, you know young earth, that kind of thing and because the Bible indicates&nbsp; the earth as unshakeable un movable, etc he has developed a geocentric model. My question to you is can we observe the Earth moving around the sun? How do you know for sure we are moving around the sun? He asked me to ask you this "ask them if "the covariance of relativity makes the geocentric and heliocentric models equally valid."&nbsp; We already know whatmodel most of them prefer, but this question does not commit them to either model and will reveal whether or not I have a point me to ask you this&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;Give me something so i can e-mail this guy. If he has his way we will be back in the dark ages&nbsp;timedisplacement&nbsp; <br />Posted by timedisplacement</DIV></p><p>Does his model account for retrograde motion?&nbsp; Does it use epicycles or the like?</p><p>How about stellar parallax?&nbsp; That would be a tough one for an unmoving Earth.&nbsp; Of course, if you are allowing for epicycles driven by unknown forces, then you can probably hand wave on that one too.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[timedisplacement]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Does his model account for retrograde motion?&nbsp; Does it use epicycles or the like?How about stellar parallax?&nbsp; That would be a tough one for an unmoving Earth.&nbsp; Of course, if you are allowing for epicycles driven by unknown forces, then you can probably hand wave on that one too.Wayne <br />Posted by drwayne</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>If you want to learn more about what he thinks and would like a good laugh here is his site&nbsp; www.geocentricity.com</p><p>&nbsp;timedisplacement</p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;If you want to learn more about what he thinks and would like a good laugh here is his site&nbsp; www.geocentricity.comtimedisplacement <br />Posted by timedisplacement</DIV></p><p>Don't laugh this off too quickly.&nbsp; Actually one can in fact say that the Sun does revolve around the Earth.&nbsp; The rotation is relative.&nbsp; BUT if you do that, then the description of mechanics gets REALLY complicated.&nbsp; The reason that we say so dogmatically that the Earth revolves around the Sun is that by using that construct one can formulate mechanics in a rather simple and elegant manner.&nbsp; So simple and elegant that adopting the other point of view is pretty stupid.&nbsp; But if you only look at the kinematics then it is workable, and that is basically how older planetariums put together the machinery for their sky shows.&nbsp; And we use that perspective every day when we say that the Sun rises in the east and sets in the west.&nbsp; But if you try to calculate planetary orbits in a geocentric time frame the result, if you can carry out the calculations at all, will be a real mess.</p><p>But it works pretty well for calculating lunar orbits.&nbsp; If you use heliocentric coordinates then that calculation gets really complicated.</p><p>I am quite sure that this is not what "he" has in mind. It never is with the real wackos.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

<p><font color="#800080">Give me something so i can e-mail this guy. If he has his way we will be back in the dark ages&nbsp;timedisplacement&nbsp; <br /> Posted by timedisplacement</font></p><p>Forget it, you nor anyone else here are not going to change this guys mind. Most halfway educated folks don't regard a geocentric model of the solar system as an accurate model anyway, but there will always be those who refuse to accept the accurate model of anything if it conflicts with their belief system. If your having doubts, then you have to decide for yourself what you think is the accurate representation of the solar system. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[Saiph]

<p>Well, the answer is: Yes, the man's point of view is perfectly valid.</p><p>Using general relativity you can indeed construct a description of the universe as being geocentric. It's a completely valid, and self-consistent approach to modeling the motion of the sky.</p><p>BUT, just because it's valid, doesn't make it a good idea.&nbsp; It is far more complicated mathematically, and far less elegant a solution from a philosophical point of view of making the earth the center of everything...despite all the motion out there. Granted, that's his goal. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>One of the big nails in the geocentric coffin from a newtonian perspective was stellar parallax.&nbsp; The nearby stars shift left and right&nbsp; slightly compared to their more distant kin on a yearly pattern.&nbsp; By slightly I mean less than an arcsecond change of position, very hard to detect, and it was..what, nearly 2 centuries after copernicus before people detected it?</p><p>In a geocentric model these stars just wobble back and forth...just because.&nbsp; And in newtonian mechanics this brings up really big issues with conservation of momentum and inertia unless you posit some mystery force in action that we know nothing about... </p><p>In a heliocentric model these stars only wobble due to the earth viewing them from two slightly different positions as the year progresses (on each side of the sun during it's orbit, a total distance shift of 2 AU).&nbsp; It's exactly analogous to holding, say a pen, about a foot in front of your face, and looking at it with one eye.&nbsp; Then, close the eye and look at it with the other.&nbsp; You'll see the pen (or finger, or whatnot) "jump" to a new position slightly to the side.&nbsp; It's only an apprenent motion, not a real motion.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>