Take the Geocentrism Challenge!

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

igorsboss

Guest
Here is an interesting challenge... Anyone here game to take this on? From Catholic Aplogetics International...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.<br />...<br />Now a word of caution. By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive. We don't want hearsay, popular opinion, "expert" testimony, majority vote, personal conviction, organizational rulings, superficial analogies, appeals to "simplicity," "apologies" to Galileo, or any other indirect means of persuasion which do not qualify as scientific proof.</font><br /><br />http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm
 
L

le3119

Guest
You're pushing the limits of scientific theory! Well, Copernicus, who was a Catholic priest, did prove that the sun is the center of the solar system, but that was five hundred years ago, and I don't know if that's direct enough! lol<br /><br />hmmmm....
 
D

dragon04

Guest
There IS no proof that anyone could provide them. It would seem that this is a cheesy attempt to solicit money from some poor sucker who would be naieve enough to give them money when exact, scientific proof is offered.<br /><br />We have posters here at SDC who wouldn't believe that Huygens landed on Titan if they were strapped to the probe.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
<font color="yellow">Focalts pendulum</font><br /><br />Their response: Not good enough. In a Geocentric model, the Earth is stationary, and the rest of the universe revolves around it, yielding the same result for Focalt's pendulum.
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
<font color="yellow">Copernicus, who was a Catholic priest, did prove that the sun is the center of the solar system</font><br /><br />No, he postulated it, and showed that it was a simplifying assumption. That's not the same as proof.
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
<font color="yellow">There IS no proof that anyone could provide them.</font><br /><br />I agree. Scientists construct models, not proofs.
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
The pendulum shows the earth rotates on its axis. The challenge is to show the earth goes around the sun.
 
L

lunatio_gordin

Guest
Can't we just show them a picture of the earth moving around the sun? got to be some probe that can do it.
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
I just drlled through a bunch of the Robert Sungenis' nonsense and uncovered his main point.<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Newton's laws do not require the smaller body revolve around the larger. We can prove this by using the principles of Newtonian mechanics. For example, in a binary star system, which star would be immobile and which would be orbiting? The correct answer, as you know from Newtonian physics, is that they both orbit their Center of Mass, halfway between them. If one star is slightly bigger, the Center of Mass shifts slightly toward it.<br /><br />Now, consider that the sun is not immobile but rotates around the solar system's Center of Mass, which calculations show is 4,000 miles from the sun's center on the line connecting the centers of the sun and Jupiter. The other planets make small corrections to this model. This again shows that planets don't orbit the sun, per se, but the Center of Mass between them and the sun.<br /><br />Newton's formula is : X's center of mass = m1x1 + m2x2/ m1 + m2<br /><br />From a geocentric point of view, the earth was created first and was the Center of Mass (Genesis 1:1-2). The other celestial objects were subsequently created (Genesis 1:14-17) and were placed around the earth with the earth still being the Center of Mass. God, as it were, calculated all the forces in the starry universe, and balanced them so that earth could be the center of mass. And then God set everything in motion, and it has remained so, just as Newton's laws of inertia state. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />So the entire universe orbits around a center of mass to which the Earth just happens to be co-locational.<br /><br />While highly improbable, there is no way to disprove this, since there is no way to find the true center of the Universe. And you'll never get that $1000.
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
I thought maybe photographic "proof" would work. Fort example, when you watch the SOHO movies from LASCO data (I think that's the right one; the data they colorize blue, in any case) you can clearly see the stars sliding past the sun. The planets are independent of this motion. A year-long time elapsed movie would clearly show the motion of the L1 position arriving back at its starting point. Unfortunately, because Robert Sungenis (this name is clearly made-up: "Robert"= <i>bright in fame,</i> and Sungenis = <i>sun + genis(is)</i>) believes that all the masses in the Universe in motion balance so that the Earth is literally at the center, even visual evidence wouldn't prove anything to him.
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
<font color="yellow">The pendulum shows the earth rotates on its axis. The challenge is to show the earth goes around the sun.</font><br /><br />Precise observations of the Sun apparent motion in the sky over time uncover the Analemma and the "Equation of Time" for Earth. The Analemma is the figure-8 shape that you find on sundials.<br /><br />The analemma is shaped the way it is for two reasons: the Earth-Sun orbit traces an ellipse obeying Kepler's 3 laws, and the Earth's axis is inclined to that orbit. An excellent proof of this may be found at the following website: http://www.analemma.com/Pages/framesPage.html<br /><br />But this alone isn't enough to establish or refute Geocentrism. It merely establishes the relative motion of the Earth/Sun system.<br /><br />Next, let's use telescopic spectrometers to observe the light from many distant stars, in many different directions, over time. In particular, let us measure precicely how the frequency of each star's light varies over time.<br /><br />If we study the distribution of the frequency changes over time, we shall find a peculiar result: Every star light's frequency changes repeat according to a very precicse one-Earth-year cycle. The stars near the ecliptic have the largest amplitude shifts, while the stars normal to the ecliptic show virtually no shifts whatsoever.<br /><br />If we compare these results to the relativistic form of the Doppler Shift equation, we find an explanation: Earth is moving relative to all of the stars in the universe on a yearly cycle.<br /><br />Let's assume for a moment that Geocentrism is correct. This doppler shift experiment demonstrates that every star in the entire universe experiences an elliptical epicycle with a mean radius of exactly 1AU, with a period of exactly 1 year, in a plane parallel to the ecliptic, and which precesses with the ecliptic.<br /><br />Using this geocentric coordinate system, an
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
Sungenis disbelieves in Relativity; if you could work out the math to show the Doppler changes in plane with Earth's orbit really do center on the Sun, using lesser mathematic tools, you just might win that $1000.
 
T

tempel1

Guest
Dear friends <br />Go here please:<br />http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=117 <br />” The spacecraft's VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE SUN is at about 26 kilometers per second (about 59,250 miles per hour). Cassini is now more than 9 million kilometers (almost 6 million miles) from Earth”. <br /><br />Since our probe is launched from the earth, it has already a velocity of 65,000 miles per hour (earth's velocity). <br /><br />Why have NASA engineers steered Cassini on this trajectory? <br /> http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=The <br /><br />Instead of increasing Cassini's velocity they have slowed down it at 59,250 miles per hour. <br /><br />NASA engineers think the earth is the center of our solar system and don't consider earth's velocity. <br /><br />In this wrong way Cassini has travelled for 2 200 000 000 miles to meet Saturn. <br /><br />Cassini would have been able to fly along a straight line travelling for less than 1 000 000 000 miles. <br /><br />65,000 miles per hour (earth velocity) + 36,000 miles per hour (spacecraft's velocity) = 101,000 miles per hour <br /><br />1 000 000 000 miles : 365 days : 24 hours : 101,000 miles per hour = 1.13 years <br /><br />If NASA engineers considered the earth's velocity, Cassini could meet Saturn in one year! <br />
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
<font color="yellow">Sungenis disbelieves in Relativity</font><br /><br />Well, we'll have to agree on our postulates first, before the proving can start.<br /><br />I don't need all the tenents of relativity for a definitive proof. The only reason I needed the relativistic version of the Doppler shift is that the wave's velocity (EM radiation) moves at relativistic speeds.<br /><br />Here are the postulates I require:<br />1) That physical laws are the same everywhere.<br />2) That any observer who measures the velocity of light in a vaccuum will always observe the same constant result, c.<br />3) No information may travel infinitely fast, nor backwards in time.<br />4) The SI definitions of "second" and "meter" are acceptable as base units of time and distance.<br /><br />Do you think I could get Sungenis to agree to these? There's a punchline to my proof that I haven't revealed to you folks yet. I think it's time to start writing this up.<br /><br />Now all I need is a bunch of observational data...
 
B

bobvanx

Guest
>>2) That any observer who measures the velocity of light in a vaccuum will always observe the same constant result, c.<br /><br />I think that you could get him to agree to this. He mentions this as a reason why the earth can't be moving, at least; namely, that since we observe the speed of light to be a constant, the earth must be motionless. So I'd be carefull in using it. I'd suggest settling on all terms first, agreeing to the framework within which you'll be presenting, and then follow-up with your proof.<br /><br />Let him inspect your ammunition without seeing how it will piece together, in other words.
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
I've thought this over a bit more...<br /><br />I think my proof will consist of 8th-grade level illustrations, undergrad Physics, graduate Math, and Phd. level atronomical observational data. Very solid, I think, especially once I introduce the as-yet-unrevealed punchline...<br /><br />I don't know where I'm going to get the astronomical data from, but I bet someone has already collected it.<br /><br />I need to collect some starlight spectral shift data from various stars over time. Raw data from planet-hunters would do very nicely.
 
L

Leovinus

Guest
I'm afraid it would cost more than $1000 to prove it, so why bother?<br /><br />You use "parallax" to show wobbling of a nearby star in relation to "stationary" far-away stars. The wobble takes place as the Earth reaches each side of its orbit AROUND THE SUN. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
Leo's got a good method.<br /><br />As we can properly ascertain the distance to those stars, and there is no mechanism for them to wobble like that on their own...the conclusion is earth goes about the sun.<br /><br />Furthermore, we see other planets go around other stars. <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>
 
V

valareos

Guest
THe issue with proving such, from an earth-sun basis, is that any results you get can be recreated whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. therefore to prove such, one must be able to view the earth and the sun from a position that is "systemsyncronus" ie, an observer platform that stays in a single location in the solar system reletive to the solar system. neither a geosyncronous nor heliosycronous orbit will fit the need. . using a distant star to keep the sensors fixed at a point in the sky will also help. you will also need to be at a point in the galaxy to see both the sun AND the earth in the same frame. now, all that in place, IF the sun orbits the earth, you will see the sun moving, with the earth staying still. If the earth orbits the sun, then you will see the eath moving, and the sun standing still.<br /><br />possible rebuttal, rest of stars orbit earth as well, so using a star as a reference wont work. <br /><br />rebutting the rebuttal, the movement of a single star orbiting the earth in the course of a year will not move enough to cause a noticeable difference in position :p<br /><br />cant prove it, I will send this to them as showing them a way to prove it lol
 
V

valareos

Guest
Got to add this here as well, because if this was sent to this guy, he would jump on it quick lol.<br /><br />The earth is the center of the universe. This is fact.<br /><br />waiiit... im not a nut, hear me out :p<br /><br />alright.. let me start with a earth based example.<br /><br />Go to a flat desert for this experiment. look north, then south, then west, then east. You are the same distance from the horizon in any direction. (ignore the fact earth isnt a perfect sphere, cause this will cancel out in the celestial example.) This limit is determined by the curvature of the earth. therefore, by definition, YOU are at the center. Move a mile north, and you can see a mile further, but you lose a mile south. keeps you center.<br /><br />Ok so what can we use for a celestial scale? Speed of light. The universe has been around for a limited amount of time. therefore, anything that is further away so it takes light longer to reach us than the universe has been around can not affect us in any way, shape, or form, cause no information can reach us. Add quantum reletivity that states nothing exists until observed, and you can then claim, correctly, that anything beyond that DOES NOT EXIST. the universe is limited by the speed of light.<br /><br />meaning, the (everexpanding) edge of the universe (as far as we will ever have to be concerned with) is the same in every direction!<br /><br />making us at the center of the universe.<br /><br />EVEN with the earth rotating around the sun, just as we walk a mile north, we will always be at the center of the universe.<br /><br />:p
 
S

Saiph

Guest
If you really want to play into it, you can use GR to describe the universe as earth in the center. It's more complicated than some other frames, but it is a valid one. The key is, it isn't the only valid one. <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>
 
I

igorsboss

Guest
Yes, I can perform an experiment that demonstrates that I'm the center of the universe.<br /><br />And Yes, you can perform the same experiment and demonstrate that you're the center of the universe.<br /><br />And so can anyone else...<br /><br />The problem is proving that my center is better than everyone else's center.
 
V

valareos

Guest
heh and in that lies the interesting fact. each of us are the center of our own universe. Theoretically ina snapshot of time, there are things that the person next to you can be affected by, that you cant be yet.<br /><br />This does perhaps bring rise to the idea the many worlds theory is a lot closer to us than we think. magine, right now, just on this planet alone, there is billions of overlapping universes....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts