Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 4

message: An image would be nice. joturner 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget about how it looks, it completely lacks citations for the vast body of its text. 75.4.223.152 03:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed Good Article

message: If the Earth is fixed, and the objects in the sky are revolving around the Earth, they are moving at quite a high velocity. The Sun, at 149,000,000 km from the Earth would be moving at 10,835 km/sec, or about 3.6% of the speed of light. An object about 4.1 billion km from Earth would be revolving around the Earth at the speed of light. Voyager 1, 8.8 billion km away would be revolving at 2.1 times the speed of light. The nearest star, proxima centauri, 4.22 light years distant would be truly whipping about at 9,600 times the speed of light. Some argue that the stars are not that far away, but it doesn't really matter much - Voyager 1 hasn't reached the stars, so we know they are father out than that. I might have made a few math errors, but it's at least close.--RLent 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quite a high velocity

message: Wouldn't Geocentrists have to throw out newton's laws of gravity?  How do they counter or explain this?--Havermayer 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newton's laws of gravity/motion 

message: Let me try and summarise the substantive and referenced arguments made in the previous section and draw a line over matters such as the prose or matters of opinon about who understands what or who is trying to do what.
The first argument is Lambian's, to quote:
:::That area [of observation] is a spherical disk, and you, the observer, are in its centre. Observers in other spots have a different spherical disk to which their observations are limited...suppose you cannot communicate across space. Yet, your observations might lead you to the theory that you're on a big sphere...you cannot know that it is not a half sphere. However, the "full sphere" theory has the same predictive power as the "half sphere" theory, but is more elegant, and therefore preferable on aesthetic grounds. In that theory, the other observers are on the same sphere. In no version does any of this give rise to a multisphere theory.
Here we have an argument about the elegance of a sphere rather than a half-sphere but how can it be said that observations might lead to theory of a sphere?  It is because of the constancy of the speed of light that the there is a spheroid observable universe around the centre of the observer, not observations, though observations seem to confirm this.
Second arguments he makes:
:::(1) the "observable universe" is a technical term. As such it is based on the presently accepted cosmological theories, and not the other way around, as you wrote. (2) The sentence about "moving circumferance" does not make any sense. You cannot see any such thing by looking at a cosmological map. (3) It is not a "problem". (4) It has not given rise to multiverse theories. (5) I cannot interpret (assign a meaning to) the bit about not allowing a "finite date" to the Big Bang. (6) No centrism is "discernible in the emergence of such novel theories". 
1.  Yes the notion of observable, or observability, is limited by the constancy of the speed of light this we all agree, and have since the start, agreed upon, it is the very thing that makes the "universe" spherical and centred upon the observer. 2.  The maps usually show earth at centre.  The circumference moves because our galaxy moves, no?  3.  Dating the birth of the universe is a problem, we can give it for the "observable universe", lets say 14b years ago.  At that time however, the stuff beyond our horizon at the moment, would still be outside it 14b years ago.  That is unless some theory is proposed to handle this problem of being the centre of a sphere of observability.  Thus such a theory, eg, multiverse, would have come from such centrism.
Secondly, the arguments of Science Apologist:
:::The observable universe is the universe as observed limited by the speed of light condition so that there is a horizon which prevents us from seeing more of the universe than this ball centered on us. The total universe may indeed by much larger than this, but it need not necessarily be a multiverse
The fact that it is spherical, due to the constancy of the speed of light, from "relativistic constraints," is patently true.  It is this very fact that gives us a centre, as you suggest.  Explaining why it is spherical does not take away from the very fact that it is spherical or spheroid and the observer (empirically, earth) is at the centre.  This is the main point.
The thing both Lambian and Science Opologist agree upon is the sphere, a trivial fact for one, for the other explanable by relativity and so has no further relevance.  Neither address the problem of the stuff beyond the observational sphere.  Would it not seem naive to think that beyond the horizon there is mere nothingness?  And especially since this nothingness arbitrarily arises because of the value for the speed of light and thus delimiting the size of the sphere.  
In my opinion, I do not consider this original research or idiocentric discussion, it is how people think or have thought about this, as is obvious from the referenced sources in the article.
Thirdly, the arguments of Bessels Function: .
--Lucas
 
If there are any other relevant discussion directly on the science of this matter please include below.  Any other matters regarding this, see article.
:I find it hard to argue with you because you appear not to understand what I (and others) write, nor do you understand what you are talking about yourself. I tried to explain a problem with your reasoning by using a simple analogon not requiring special understanding of cosmology: observers anchored on a sphere. I did not forward that as a replacement cosmological model. The theories described in the article are not "my" theories, and they are not theories I "agree upon". What is described here are mainstream cosmological theories. Whether they are correct or whether there is a problem with them is an issue that is of no relevance here. According to mainstream cosmological theories, the Big Bang happened the same amount of time ago everywhere. That was mentioned explicitly in the Scientific American article you referred to. You appear to apply a Newtonian viewpoint to this motion thing. Well, assuming a conservative estimate for the size of the observable universe (50 Gly), and noting that our galaxy has an estimated speed of one third lightyear per century, that amounts to a displacement of less than 0.0000000007% of that size per century. I can assure you that the accuracy and resolution of the best cosmological maps is not enough to make that noticeable. More importantly, the observable universe is actually the set of spacetime points to which we are causally connected: we as observers are in their "future light cones". By moving around, you cannot move into the cones of spacetime points you are not causally connected to. In other words, nothing will become part of the observable universe that was not already part of it. The observable universe can only shrink in time to a proper subset of what it was before. I suggest that you take further questions and debate to the Science reference desk. This talk page is meant for discussing improvements to the article. --LambiamTalk 06:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make about the nature of the observable universe, but I am fairly sure of one thing: Nary a reader who is interested in learning about Modern Geocentrism will care a whit about whatever it is you are saying. Unless you can establish a connection to improving this article, please leave both the article and the talk page alone! --Art Carlson 12:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of Arguments on Observational Centrism I

message: I've moved this here just in case I'm mistaken about this...
Another is in Joshua 10, 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:
: Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
I think it shouldn't be in the article because it indicates a heliocentric, rather than geocentric, view of the universe. It clearly says "the sun was in the midst of heaven."
SheffieldSteel 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who think they must draw astronomical conclusions from this text, the geocentric version is less contrived. Furthermore, this verse should stay in simply because it is commonly cited as Biblical evidence for geocentrism. If you have an attributable reference that suggests the other reading, that might be interesting to add. (I will wait a bit for further comment before putting the text back.) --Art Carlson 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is interpreting "the sun... in the midst of heaven" to mean that the earth is the centre of the universe less contrived than taking it to mean that the sun is? The passage does, after all, refer to the sun. And what is biblically based geocentrism, if not drawing astronomical conclusions from the text? SheffieldSteel 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Sun stood still ..." implies that it usually moves, and in particular that the daily motion is caused by the motion of the Sun rather than that of the Earth. "... in the midst of heaven" could refer to a central position for the Sun in the astronomical order, but that interpretation would be hard to reconcile with the Sun normally not standing still there. The more obvious interpretation is that the middle of the visible sky is meant. I personally think that such discussions are silly. Fortunately we don't have to agree on any interpretation, we just have to report how other people see it. --Art Carlson 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Text moved from main page 

message: What is the technical difference between modern geocentrism and regular (classic?) geocentrism?
I do not understand why they deserve different articles. The only difference between the theories is context. Jhalkompwdr 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: (modern)

message: I tagged the Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations with  because the first two subsections may be out of date or otherwise incorrect:
* The Gamma Ray Bursts section quotes Katz's 2002 book claiming GRBs are found in a spherical shell and that therefore a dilemma exists - have recent GRB findings shown this is no longer so? Our article on GRBs makes no mention and recent GRBs would seem to contradict this. If so the section should be rewritten in the past tense.
*:This is still correct because GRBs are at cosmological distances. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Extreme - beyond a doubt. Unbelievable - not. The current consensus is that the power is tightly beamed, so the total power is dramatically lower than if you assume isotropy. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems reasonable to use "community" and "establishment" as roughly synonymous. There is no country in the world whose cosmology establishment (if they have one) seriously doubts the Big Bang, so it has nothing to do with the US. I work in the same institute as Halton Arp, and I  haven't heard a peep of doubt of the Big Bang. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Physics expert requested on Gammay Ray Bursters and Red Shift

message: According to the first sentence, geocentrism is the belief that the earth neither moves nor rotates. For this to be true, the observed universe would have to rotate about the earth once every 24 hours, which implies some tremendous centripetal forces in action - or is there something implied in the term "inertial reference frame" that I'm missing? If so, it should be explained. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are "tremendous centripetal forces". They are produced by gravitomagnetism. This is mentioned in the section Modern geocentrism#"The inertial frame is the only special rotation.". Do you think we need to go into more detail here? Or should the reader rather go to the gravitomagnetism article for details? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Universal rotation 

message: This section is rather weak on saying who believes which form.
What exactly does Gerardus Bouw, for example, espouse? It sometimes sounds like he agrees with mainstream scientists that neither geocentricity nor acentricity is falsifiable. If that is the case, then we would need to add another subsection for that "Form of modern geocentrism". If there is a significant number of modern geocentrists that accept modern cosmology, in particular regarding the size of the universe, would we then need to mention the problem that events we observe billions of light years away must have happened billions of years ago? (This does not contradict geocentrism per se, but does contradict the usually concurrent belief in a young Earth.)
User:Mroam helpfully found a reference (here) for the category "Geocentrism based on a radically different cosmology". But it makes me wonder if this source and this form of modern geocentrism are notable. Does Marshall Hall have any following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Carlson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forms of modern geocentrism 

message: AnonMoos proposed this edit:
In Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel Star of the Unborn, it is said that future science will have determined that Earth has a special status as the "Infinitely Mobile Central Point of All Conceivable Orbits".
He makes the same proposal about once a year. I first removed it with the edit summary "Removed reference to fiction that doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article", which I still stand by. I am reverting the change again, but am welcome to listen to the arguments of any editors who think it belongs here (or hear support from those who don't). --Art Carlson (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel ''Star of the Unborn'' 

message: I'm interested in knowing any modern sources regarding catholic geocentrism. I've never heard any catholic priest state that the earth is the center of the universe, and I can't help but wonder if that part of the article is attempting to single out the catholic faith (I honestly hope I'm wrong).
Punga 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Until about 1500 A.D., western Christianity was Catholicism.  After 1500 A.D., Protestantism became distinct from Catholicism, but most of the high-profile religious pronouncements or incidents over challenges to geocentrism involved Catholic authorities (though there were certainly prominent Protestant geocentrists also, during the first few centuries). AnonMoos 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Catholics believe in geocentrism, including the Kolbe Center (Catholic Creation organization), John Salza (An author, who also runs ScriptureCatholic.com), and Robert Sungenis. --72.80.42.210 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholic Geocentrism 

message: The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.
This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special. The frame in which Sun is at rest or Sun is moving with a constant velocity are equivalent. Juggling sun around earth produces a load of systemic forces...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.49.127 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is correct. Please read the whole article including the section called "The inertial frame is the only special rotation.", then try to understand the basics of gravitomagnetism. If you are still confused after that, you are welcome to come back with your questions (at least to the extent that they may help improve the article). --Art Carlson (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General relativity? 

message: ... is for some reason entirely missing from the article, even though geocentrism is one of it's main foundations. Lunus (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reliable source for that? (I thought astrology was not rational enough to have any foundations.) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Joachim Winkelmann - Geheimnis der Talismane und Amulette, Dr. Musallam (Franz Sättler) - Astrologie. Then there's a few sources in Horoscope and Astrology. All of these use geocentrism as the base of astrology - some of them view it as entirely equal to heliocentrism (among them the two books I've listed), others limit it to astrology. I know of no modern sources that hold it to be superior to heliocentrism for general use, though, so I'm not quite sure whether to include it in the article. Lunus (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's interesting. I suspect that WP:WEIGHT arguments will prevent more than a brief mention of astrology, but that mention might improve the completeness of the coverage and suggest further connections to the interested reader. Can you say anything about the prominence of these two authors within astrology? (There are probably more books on astrology on the market than sand on the beach.) When were they published? Do they consider it incidental, since you only need the relative positions of the planets and fixed stars to calculate a horoscope, or do they consider it important and deep? A Google search on "geocentrism astrology" gave me 112,000 hits, so there might be something there. (Or is a mere 112,000 as good as zero nowadays?) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astrology 

message: What it seems to me is that these supposedly "geocentrist" physicists are trying to fit the more general theories into something that lies somewhere in between in order to prove "geocentrism". Of course you can consider the Earth as your frame of reference and solve the equations from there, adding or subtracting correction terms in order to make it fit the known observable data. But this is incredibly bad science. This should be said specifically in the article. Earth's position in the universe isn't (or shouldn't be considered) privileged from the start just out of dogmatic belief. You can do so , but you are just trying to please yourself and your religious beliefs. Talk about bad science. This modern geocentrism movement is of the same kind as all those intelligent design/creationist mambo-jambo pseudo-scientific arguments we see sprouting from the more bigot every now and then  --193.136.74.102 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: also, it seems that what is said about the coriolis and centrifugal forces is incorrect. if you use the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian)formulation of the equations of motion for someone standing on the surface of the planet, you don't need the so-called "fictitious" forces (Coriolis, etc) - as the two terms (coriolis and centrifugal) will elegantly appear as you solve the equations (see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-74572.html ), and yet you still need to consider rotation. Finally the coriolis effect is observable directly on the surface of this planet which is immediate evidence for its rotation. Using  arguments arising from gravitomagnetism is obscure and far-fetched. The explanation given in the text is unclear... can anyone prove this mathematically? if so give out the results.  --193.136.74.102 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: This is ridiculous

message: The current text of the article says, "Paul V ... ratified ... 1633 ...condemation of
Galileo ...". Pope Paul V died in 1621 and cannot have ratified anything produced in
1633.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.173.23 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anachronism 

message: I've reworded the second bullet point because I felt it was rather too rich in words like "supposedly" to be truly NPOV. Also I've attempted to make it a little clearer. Hopefully I have maintained the semantics of the section. SheffieldSteel 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overview of modern geocentrism 

message: This section, particularly with this recent edit, is much too long, and entails too much OR (and/or is unsourced) and POV ("Geocentrists tend to be careless or sloppy", "The problem with this interpretation, is ..."). Somebody needs to come through with a machete. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. New014 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical references section 

message: The theory of the above says that both the Earth and the Sun have no privileged status.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.171 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm at a loss as to what you're talking about.  --King Öomie 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativity 

message: “This belief is often based on Biblical verses and is most common among American Protestants.”
I believe that this claim found in the first paragraph of the article should be cited. If it can’t, then it should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.162.199 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geocentrism most common among American Protestants? 

message: It is NOT bad science to say that a there is no preferred frame of reference in General Relativity.  As for geocentrism, it is very close to the frame of reference that we use every day.  Any other frame of reference is just as valid, so there's nothing special about an Earth-centric reference frame, except that it is useful to us (when you walk down the street, do you worry about the fact that both you and your destination moves 30km every second relative to the Sun?).  There is nothing special about a Sun-centered or fixed star centered or a center of the galaxy centered or any other frame, either.  If Einstein was right, and there's considerable evidence backing up General Relativity, then there is no experiment that can distinguish among "the Earth orbits the Sun and rotates once per day" and "the Earth doesn't rotate but the entire universe, including the Sun, orbits the Earth once per day."  This does not require any "correction terms" and there is no "in between" theory involved.  You just transform Einstein's differential equations from one set of coordinates to the other.  All of the forces, linear and rotational, emerge from the solution to the Einstein equations exactly as needed when you switch the reference frames to make it impossible to distinguish one from the other.
My relativity books are in storage, but Born's Einstein's Theory of Relativity is the clearest popular book that discusses this, and any standard General Relativity textbook goes into great detail.  When I can dig them out, I'll add some math that explains this, but I think we ought to be able to make a clear qualitative statement about this that laymen can understand.  "Relativity" means that no reference frame is favored over another.  That is only true for non-accelerating frames in Special Relativity, but in General Relativity it is true for accelerating reference frames (including rotating frames), too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.134.75 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to this is ridiculous

message: "In a poll conducted by Gallup in 1999, 18% of Americans said that they believe the Sun orbits the Earth. In two polls conducted in 1996, 16% of Germans,and 19% of Britons responded that they also believe the Sun orbits the Earth.[1]"
This would be better phrased as a single sentence, I think, in descending order of population percentage (19% of Britons, 18% of Americans, 16% of Germans), to avoid any implication that one of the countries in particular is less educated than others. Agreed? 98.217.75.153 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrasing of intro suggests "Americans are stupid" POV 

message: "A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong" by Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune August 27, 2011 -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent newspaper article

message: I don't think this article warrants deletion, though it is a mess and could use a lot of cleanup. I've put a detailed argument on the deletion request page, but in short I believe the topic of modern geocentrism, at least, adequately adheres to Wikipedia's policies. It's notable and culturally relevant, and the page is clearly not in support of the beliefs. I rewrote the intro and maybe I'll make some more edits later to get things a bit more concise, cited, and neutral. With its weight and notability considered, edits should be made realizing that the article is about a fringe theory, and that it should be about the belief, not a soapbox for or against it. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion Status

message: Not sure if 88.130.81.166 (in the "this is ridiculous" thread) thinks he knows more than Einstein about General Relativity, but here it is straight from the horse's mouth (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p. 212 (248 in 1938 ed)):
:"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." Major figures in cosmology, physics, and astronomy (Albert Einstein, Max Born, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Fred Hoyle, among others) are in agreement that there is no scientific way to prove either model over the other, nor any non-philosophical/theological justification for doing so, SPECIFICALLY in the context of General Relativity.
I removed a comment I posted before. After examining the article in more detail, it actually appears to be biased in FAVOR of geocentrism, and quite lengthy in many areas where it should be much more concise. I apologize for not having read it more thoroughly before posting. I completely agree with where the criticism of this article is coming from. Having the arguments of modern geocentrism is fine, along with how the standard model addresses them or not, etc. but it shouldn't be a dissertation that appears to wholly support one view or the other. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein Himself on The Two Major Universe Models, and Article Bias Issues