Take the Geocentrism Challenge!

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well, considering SR is encompassed entirely within GR... GR does say what I said it says. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Nope. SR deals with bodies that are not under acceleration. GR takes into account acceleration. Under acceleration, all frames are NOT equivalent. And the Earth is accelerating around the sun, so we can absolutely distinguish one frame from the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow">The mere fact that we can predict with total accuracy when and where every satellite of Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto will be visible is proof in and of itself.</font><br /><br />We predict that with math based on the fact that the center of the solar system is just outside the center of the Sun, not Earth.<br /><br />Since our math based on the Sun being the approximate center of the solar system works and absolutely accurately predicts when and where every satellite of Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto will be visible, the Sun must be the center of the solar system. If the sun was NOT the approximate center of the solar system, then our calculations and predictions would NOT work.<br /><br />Now try calculating all of this with your assumption (@ss out of you, but not me) that the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe you bunch of nuts. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> (Of course the previous sentence is not directed at anyone in this thread.)

 

[igorsboss]

<font color="yellow">(Of course the previous sentence is not directed at anyone in this thread.)</font> <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Just in case you misunderstood... I'm not a geocentrist!<br /><br />My purpose here is to solicit and review ideas, to figure out the best proof that geocentrism is bunk, according to the rules of the geocentrism challenge.

 

[arobie]

Yes, of course I know you're not a geocentrist. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I've read enough your posts to know that you couldn't believe such nonsense.<br /><br />That's why I included that disclaimer at the end.<br /><br />That post was written as if I was communicating with the people who issued the challenge. I might or might not be so rude if I was really talking to them though. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[larper]

Ok, I got to thinking about that, and I think you are right. The gyroscope cannot detect the earth being accelerated. I would have to apply a rate to the gyro to have it pointing to the sun. We could detect that rate. But, you could do the same thing from the sun, apply a rate to the gyro to maintain it pointing to the earth. Same thing.<br /><br />You could point it at a fixed star and watch it deviate over the course of an orbit, basically detecting parallax, but that is about it.<br /><br />Now, couldn't we use two clock? One at that sun, and one on earth. The one on earth will run slower, right, even after either one is brought into the other frame for comparison? We chose to call the clock that runs faster as the "fixed" clock. In other words, the gyro cannot detect acceleration, but the clock can. The Twin Paradox, basically, proves that the earth orbits the sun, not vice versa. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[rednet]

Make the check payable to:<br /><br />Galileo Galilei<br /><br />As he, and no one else was the FIRST person to show that the earth in-deed revolves around the sun.<br /><br />GR is not a basis in explaining it, so it shouldn't be used to refute or twist the evidence. <br /><br />I really don't understand why anyone would describe the physical world in unrealistic methods. (theories and postulates) There is observable evidence that is proof beyond reasonable doubt that the earth is not the center of the universe (gravitationally speaking) that's not to say that it can't be at the center (geographically speaking) because that can never be proven either way. <br /><br />For one years time map the paths or "orbits" that the planetary satellites have. They do not follow a linear path, or circular orbit. They loop and cross their own paths while the path of the Sun and Moon follow a linear path across the sky, corroborating a direct relationship to the earth. If the planetary satellites had direct relationships to earth they would follow a linear path across the sky. The only way that this could happen is if the earth was at the center of the universe in a gravitational sense i.e.. everything in the universe revolving around the earth. (This works similar for stars, but in a nightly course. You will notice the circular pattern they trace, tighter towards the poles. If distant stars were circulating from far away you would not see circular pathways at the poles.) Only a spinning object can offer this type of visual effect. <br /><br />The only reason people have for saying and believing that the earth is at the center of the universe is philosophical in nature. Peoples lives don't have any meaning without it and no real purpose for living is attained. It is important to these people "to believe without seeing" to know nothing of the "truth". Its what they have been told to do and follow without question, without free thought. They live with the consolation to have the satisfaction o

 

[bobvanx]

I think the neatest view would be from the Moon looking at Earth. Earth would be spinning in one place almost fast enough to perceive, and for two weeks each month during the lunar night you'd be able to watch half the stars in the sky slip by.<br /><br />That would be a view that would tend to support geocentrism, actually, since it would look like the moon and the sun and the stars all went around the Earth. And the sun will look smaller than the Earth.<br /><br />All of which suggests to me that any LGM that evolve on a gas giant moon would never have this discussion, because their creation myth would probably focus strongly on the gas giant and their moon would be in service to the great orb in the sky.

 

[larper]

Actually, if you plot the orbit of the moon to scale, its orbit around the sun is never "convex". In other words, the moon is never moving away from the sun. The moon can be considered to be orbiting the sun, and the earth only perturbs that orbit. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[izzykareem]

I realize this thread is a little dated, but i must ask if those here have thought of this angle. Btw, i read every single post in this thread.<br /><br />The two theories, geocentrism and heliocentrism are what are being debated so to speak. What if its neither really? Scientific evidence suggests and seems proven that we are moving, the entire universe in some direction at a very fast rate although are we thinking too deeply. One of the users employed the idea of the relative frames of motion making it impossible to really tell what is stationary and what is moving around what and all of you have employed ideas/postulates/hypotheses that what we observe trying to prove one theory could just as well be used to prove the other.<br /><br />So, going back to my question, can it be emphatically stated that the earth travels around the sun when in actuality the sun is "moving" and the earth is "moving" so is it not plausible that its not that the earth is the center nor the sun is the center, but they are all a "moving center of objects"? For simplicities sake, something akin to binary stars (is that correct, stars that seem to revolve around each other?) It's been awhile since i was in an astonomy class. Except this example extrapolated to the Milky Way, is a larger version of this?<br /><br />thanks and i have enjoyed reading so far, please write back.