Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 3

message: Intro paragraph:
"The term Modern Geocentrism refers to a belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, motivated by a literal interpretation of certain Bible passages, and the belief that modern science has no proof that the earth moves (translates or rotates), even with the awareness that essentially all modern scientists are not convinced by the evidence that the universe is earth centered. Modern geocentrists assert that the Geocentric model is capable of expalining all the observations and force interactions in the universe as well as any other perspective, and that the main objection to it is philosophical."
The intro paragraph is an amalgamation of very strange bits and pieces of imprecisely worded claptrap. For example "modern science has no proof" is a misnomer to be sure since "scientific proof" is something that really doesn't exist in the same sense that "logical proof" exists. More than that the next clause is absolutely crazy: "evidence that the universe is earth centered" makes almost no sense from the perspective of what scientific evidence is and from the perspective of earth centered being completely undefined as a perspective or as an absolute position. More than this, the assertion of modern geocentrism about a "geocentric model" (which isn't uniform as you can see from the rest of the article) is unwieldy and doesn't address the main point of modern geocentrism that is that the Earth is the center of the universe and not whether a different perspective can be obtained from looking at things in a different frame of reference. Basically you have a problem of talking about something that is a claim of modern geocentrism rather than modern geocentrism itself. Joshuaschroeder 04:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic points of editting

message: Would Ungtss please explain to me what exactly his problem is with the following differences?
My version:
"However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author. As such, they argue that it is bad practice to draw geocentric implications from the verses because the conclusion stems more from the purposes and bias of the interpreter rather than the claimed intent of the author. Much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset, such descriptions can be considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement geocentrism...."
His version:
"However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author. Much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset, such descriptions can be considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement geocentrism. As such, they argue that it is bad practice to draw geocentric implications from the verses because the texts are not about geocentrism, so that the conclusion stems more from the purposes and bias of the interpreter rather than the intent of the author. Finally, the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah is considered by most to be a metaphorical description of God's power, rather than an indication that God literally rests his feet on the Earth."
The reason my version is better is because it is a natural progression from a) what biblical scholars say (they don't believe in the support of geocentricity), b) why (it's a bad practice), and then c) what could be the alternative (a choice of reference system).
Contrast this to Ungtss' version which starts with a) but then moves to c) and then back to b). Furthermore, Ungtss is trying to include the more forceful wording that the conclusion must stem for from the biases of the interpreter rather than the intent of the author without actually being able to say what the intent of the author is. My version is better because it makes explicit that the intent of the author is claimed to be a certain thing by the majority of biblical scholars. 
With these considerations in mind, I will now revert. Joshuaschroeder 16:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ungtss has chosen the peculiar route of including both his sentence and my sentence which is a particularly bad editorial choice in my opinion. I have changed it back to my version and hopefully await the time when Ungtss can comment on why he dislikes my version. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please refrain from sarcastic personal remarks in section titles.  they are considered personal attacks, and are extremely improper.  not that you have any interest in the rules, i realize.  in any event, it is you who are breaking up the logical flow of the text, in an effort to water it down.  my superior version flows from "these are just natural descriptions from their perspective" to "this is their coordinate system," and concludes with, "this is bad practice."  perhaps you should let someone else edit this article?  Ungtss 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ungtss' peculiar axe to grind

message: Seeing as how many modern geocentrists believe that modern geocentrism is a matter of faith, how can the claim that modern geocentrism isn't a matter of faith be substantiated wrt papal infallibilty? Joshuaschroeder 02:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: once again, schroeder, you are criticizing an argument from outside the argument.  this depends on one's definition of "matters of faith."  most people don't think that whether the earth moves or not is a matter of faith.  other people do.  npov provides for both opinions.  please stop.  Ungtss 02:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if there is controversy on this topic, we should be explicit that this is the controversy. As the sentence stands right now it sounds like everybody agrees it isn't a matter of faith. Joshuaschroeder 18:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: i don't ascribe to your viewpoint myself, truth seeker, but i've come to have a great respect for your point of view by reading your postings.  thank you for expanding my world a little:).  Ungtss 05:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern Geocentrism a matter of faith?

message: From the Wikipedia Article linkeed in the Intro.:
"...Despite the controversial philosophical origins of the concept, particularly its close association with logical positivism, operational definitions have undisputed practical applications..."
:Yes, the "practical application" in this case is physics. An "operational definition" may be defined by controversial philosophical origins, but when it is used, those origins are not appealed to. The practical applications are what matters. Joshuaschroeder 23:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operational Definition 

message: NPOV policy says that POVs should be attributed.  At the moment this pushes one particular POV, does not discuss others, and states opinion as fact.  Dunc|☺ 12:36, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give specific objections so that there's something for the editors to address. Otherwise the unsightly tag will be there forever. --Ian Pitchford 13:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's more of a general tone problem than raising specific points.  Really it confuses science with spirituality/theology, and by mixing the terminology and methodology of determining meaning within science and religion, results in an article that is neither good science nor good theology or philosophy.  Now, if that is a genuine view and is presented as such, then that is okay, but as it is the article pushes that particular POV. Dunc|☺ 14:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I am putting back my edits, because these experiments or this type of experiment clearly establishes the motion of the earth, and specifically within the context of the heading given, namely "general relativity".
In other words, if you took a clock on a spaceship and went one way around the sun back to the earth, and another clock the other way around the sun, you have a 100% valid experiment that the earth is in motion.
Jok2000 14:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Haefele and Keating, like the Foucault Pendulum, prove that the Earth is not an inertial frame with respect to rotation. But if the heavens really were rotating, they would drag the inertial frame along with them through, well, frame dragging. HK is consistent with a rotating universe in the context of general relativity. --Art Carlson 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The motion of the Earth wrt the CMB is even less relevant here. The relative motion is proved by experiment, but the identification of the CMB with an absolute rest frame is an allowable but necessary assumption. --Art Carlson 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: revert revert revert --Art Carlson 19:14, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You are wrong that 4b is the expectation for the geocentric frame. The actual prediction would be 4a and not 4b. This is because the rotating universe changes the metric in a way that corresponds to more time on the space clock than on the Earth clock. This would be due to the fact that the space clock would have a conveniently associated gravitational time dilation due to the curvature of space associated with a trip out from a fiducially centered Earth and back through frames whose curvature tensor were changed enough to doubly counteract the special relativity effects due to the relativistic properties of rotating frames. A frame that is rotating is effectively associated with curvature enough to cause geocentrism as a perspective to be the same as any other dynamically equivalent perspective. Joshuaschroeder 14:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You seem to have misunderstood the point. In a rotating universe there is an additional component to curvature that explains what you describe above as an apparent lack of equivalence between 4a and 4b. 4b, in fact, is not what the geocentric frame with a rotating universe predicts. It in fact predicts 4a just as the calculation in the inertial frame. In the inertial frame, we would use your analysis to calculate the difference between the clocks and obtain 4a, but one could also use the frame where the Earth was stationary and the universe had a rotation around it to obtain the same result. This would introduce a curvature associated with frame-dragging that would also provide the time-dilation necessary to obtain exactly the same prediction (4a) as the inertial formulation. Joshuaschroeder 15:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the maximum would be any inertial frame (which, it turns out the sun isn't). So I'm not sure where you're going with this. Joshuaschroeder 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well so is the Earth an inertial frame?  Because if its not, it's not the center. Jok2000 00:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No, there are no experiments that can be made to differentiate between frames by the equivalency principle. All we can say is that an inertial frame is defined well by the CMB, for example. Joshuaschroeder 23:15, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's exactly why I added the Haefele-Keating experiment.  It rather much speaks for itself.Jok2000 00:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: But as Art Carlson explained above there is an equivalency of a moving Earth and an inertial universe with an inertial Earth and a moving universe. This is ultimately a form of the equivalence principle in the grandest of senses. Joshuaschroeder 01:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Your latest changes to the main page seem to get to the point, and I propose no further changes.  However as far as the equivalence principle goes, the ep page states broadly that all experiments would have the same result in a lab.  The difference in HK is that you have 3 labs recording their results (the ticking of the clocks) and then the recorders are all brought back together and results compared, and the comparison of the 3 experiments (counting of clock ticks) is then whatever you make of it, its just a measurement, being repeated every day of the week by GPS satellites.  I don't think this page needs to be so pessimistic about experimentation.Jok2000 02:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haefele Keating & CMB direction 

message: "In other words the EM properties of the universe may not 'know' they are in rotation" (Truth_Seeker)
What's all this medieval horse crap doing here?  Sometimes Wikipedia's policies stagger me.  (Broadacre 21:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, contains articles on idiocy as well as brilliance.  Neocapitalist 20:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ....