Geocentrism 101, Part II: Basic Physics

[Markjwyatt]

Geocentrism 101, Part II- Basic Physics is available on this link:

[url="http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/"]Catholic Truths[/url]

Pat I is also available here.

We can discuss if you want.

Mark

[Laudate_Dominum]

This is a topic I haven't seen in a good while.

I don't accept geocentrism and don't think it's necessary in the first place. But I haven't read the article yet...

Thanks for posting it.

*goes to read article*

[peach_cube]

So according to any geocentric system, why is the Moon's orbit taking it further and further away each year?

Also, consulting ancient chinese and babylonian eclipse records as well as tidal rythmites in the geological record, we see evidence for shorter days. How does a geocentric model account for this change?

Why does the rate of planetary motion fluxuate? How is that compatable with the geocentric idea of gravity?

Why do we see spectroscopic red shift and blue shift (with the majority being red)?

If in this model we can allow for other stars to have planets orbiting around them, why do we conclude that our geosystem is unique? The sun can be found to have matching composition as other stars, why then assume it is not?

If we ignore the idea of gravity distorting the fabric of space-time how do we explain gravitational lensing?

If the "aether" is made of the Planck particle why would so dense of an object, that would have to be everywhere, be undetectable? If this is the compostion of aether why is there no graviational lensing?

Why do we see evidence for massive impact events on the planets and on Earth?

[Laudate_Dominum]

Yeah, it seems like there is a mountain of evidence against geocentrism, and I don't find the arguments in favour of it to be all that compelling...

[peach_cube]

Also, you must explain coriolis deflection and disprove Focault's Pendulum.

[Markjwyatt]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM']So according to any  geocentric system, why is the Moon's orbit taking it further and further away each year? [/quote]

If it is happening, it could be the same explanation as a heliocentric system. The physics are fundamentally the same. Is the universe slowing down?

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM']Also, consulting ancient chinese and babylonian eclipse records as well as tidal rythmites in the geological record, we see evidence for shorter days.  How does a geocentric model account for this change? [/quote]

Again, ditto.


[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM'] Why does the rate of planetary motion fluxuate?  How is that compatable with the geocentric  idea of gravity? [/quote]

As I stated, many geocentrists propose the modern Tychonian system. In this system, the sun travels with the universe daily around the earth. The planets orbit the sun (earth excluded of course), just like in the Keperian system.

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM']  Why do we see spectroscopic red shift and blue shift (with the majority being red)? [/quote]

Are you talking expansion of space redshift or red / blue intra-solar system shifting? In the first case it is an open question what is causing it with expansion of the universe being a candidate. In the second, a precession of the universe (accounting for the seasons, parallax, etc.) would move the sun and planets in a annual cycle.


[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM']  If in this model we can allow for other stars to have planets orbiting around them,  why do we conclude that our geosystem is unique?  The sun can be found to have matching composition as other stars, why then assume it is not?[/quote]

The only explanation I know of is that God chose to literally make His creation the center, and He (through the Holy Spirit) inspired the Scripture writers to say so, who inspired the Fathers to unanomously interpret the Scriptures that way. Three Popes then made authoritative declarations against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM'] If we ignore the idea of gravity distorting the fabric of space-time how do we explain gravitational lensing?[/quote]

I don't think it is any different in the geocentric system.

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM']If the "aether" is made of the Planck particle why would so dense of an object, that would have to be everywhere, be undetectable?  If this is the compostion of aether why is there no graviational lensing? [/quote]

First, tell me why dark matter and dark energy which purportedly make up 96% of the mass of the universe are undetectable? If they exist who says they are not in fact an aether?

Remember Planck particles are 10's of magnitudes smaller wavelengths than photons. They would not interact directly. Still there could be gravitational lensing occuring. Also, the aether could contain other components which would interact with photons.

Remember, too, the aether part is much more speculative.

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 06:57 PM'] Why do we see evidence for massive impact events on the planets and on Earth?
[right][snapback]675444[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Same reason as in the helio or acentric systems. Comets, asteroids, meteorites hit panets, moons, each other, etc.

Fundamentally, though the physics in geocentrism are the same as the physics we are used to dealing with. Though the universe is rotating in this system, objects locally don't really "know" they are rotating. They act more or less like objects everywhere else. On a universal scale, the rotation does play out in how the universe is configured.

Mark

[Markjwyatt]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Aug 6 2005, 07:04 PM']Yeah, it seems like there is a mountain of evidence against geocentrism, and I don't find the arguments in favour of it to be all that compelling...
[right][snapback]675452[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In my mind, we cannot prove nor disprove geocentrism, heliocentrism, nor acentrism. Really the most compelling evidence for geocentrism is Scripture, authoritative interpretation of Scripture by the Fathers, and the authoritative statements of three Popes (as well as lack of satements rescinding or to the contrary). My purpose in trweating the science is to help people get past the brainwashing they have about this issue.

Mark

[Markjwyatt]

[quote name='peach_cube' date='Aug 6 2005, 08:01 PM']Also, you must explain coriolis deflection and disprove Focault's Pendulum.
[right][snapback]675484[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Take a look at this link. I deal with both these issues:

[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=23813&postcount=30"]Foucalt's Pendulum[/url]

The same forces cause a force analogous to the Corliolis force. This is part of the gravitational forces from distant rotating masses to which Rosser (and Gron / Erikson) is referring. It was demonstrated by Thirring in 1918 (go back to Part I and see the Max Born quote):

Max Born in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345 says:

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by [b]distant rotating masses[/b]. [b]This has been done by Thirring[/b]. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space."

The "other" includes the Corliolis force.

Mark

[peach_cube]

[quote name='Markjwyatt' date='Aug 6 2005, 11:48 PM']If it is happening, it could be the same explanation as a heliocentric system.  The physics are fundamentally the same. Is the universe slowing down?
Again, ditto.[/quote]

I fail to see how the physics are the same. Using Planck particles to make the the earth the center of the universe. Gravitationally then the center would have to be the earth. If that gravity is hidden in planck particles then how can the moon move away? What is giving the moon the force to move away? Ultimately in a heliocentric model we can point to the conservation of angular momentum from the collapse of the pre protostellar nebula. How do we do it in this system. [ I am by no means a physicist, but I have taken 3 level of calculus based physics for engineering as well up to differential calculus, and I fail to see how you can say that the physics are the same}

[quote]As I stated, many geocentrists propose the modern Tychonian system. In this system, the sun travels with the universe daily around the earth. The planets orbit the sun (earth excluded of course), just like in the Keperian system.[/quote]

This still does not explain physically how you can account for the "backward motion" of the planets. What force is slowing down their orbital velocity?

[quote]Are you talking expansion of space redshift or red / blue intra-solar system shifting? In the first case it is an open question what is causing it with expansion of the universe being a candidate.[/quote]

Red shift, the expansion of the universe, most are shifted to the red and therefore moving away. Others are blue shifted and moving toward us (All of Andromeda for example).


[quote]The only explanation I know of is that God chose to literally make His creation the center, and He (through the Holy Spirit) inspired the Scripture writers to say so, who inspired the Fathers to unanomously interpret the Scriptures that way. Three Popes then made authoritative declarations against heliocentrism and for geocentrism.[/quote]

But if you want to talk science, you cannot weasle out if it in that way. Say that I'm not a Catholic. You are trying to convert me. This comes up. I will now think that all you are saying is bunk. God could also have just created the world now and now, etc. Observationally it is like saying I observe that only women give birth. I conclude that I as a male could still give birth.

I personally find the commonly prescribed to view of the universe humbling. I see the geocentric model as an attempt to exault ourselves.

3 popes and the fathers lacked much of the observational understanding and physics that we have today. What are the conditions needed for infallibility?

[quote] I don't think it is any different in the geocentric system.[/quote]

You don't think. How can we observe lensing if we are enveloped in planck particles? Remember they are essentially mini- black holes. Light would be unable to escape.

[quote]First, tell me why dark matter and dark energy which purportedly make up 96% of the mass of the universe are undetectable? If they exist who says they are not in fact an aether?[/quote]

They are detectable black holes, planets, comets, asteroids, interstellar debris. They are dark because they do not emit light. However even if we take all of these and take the highest esimate, we at best get 50% of the dark matter. Also, if we look at our solar system 99% of the mass in the solar system is luminous.

[quote]Remember Planck particles are 10's of magnitudes smaller wavelengths than photons. They would not interact directly. Still there could be gravitational lensing occuring. Also, the aether could contain other components  which would interact with photons.[/quote]

But you can't say maybe there is something else. If there is already a system that is explained and works and you propose something that works but isn't explained no one should accept it. The Church had every right to not prescribe to the heliocentric model. Galileo had something that worked, but he had no explanation.

[quote]Same reason as in the helio or acentric systems. Comets, asteroids, meteorites hit panets, moons, each other, etc.[/quote] I just don't see the physical explantion of why a comet would be all over the place in it's orbit...

With the focault pendulum a sphere large enough to encase the cosmos would collapse inward on itself. Besides I thought we required the Aether to interconnect everything so that the gravitational force can be instantaneous. Or are we saying that somewhere at the edge of the universe there is a large empty space and even further out we have the shell that is moving. Or are we saying that the Shell is the Aether and includes the cosmos rotating around the Earth? but then the stars are fixed with the sun so how would that work?




Honestly, I like Occum's Razor.

[peach_cube]

And Mark, you don't need to reply. I have now seen enough on your thread here[url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2503&page=1&pp=25"]Geocentrism thread[/url] to see your views.

I enjoy your thoughts, but my grandma always said "keep it simple stupid" so that's what I intend to do.

Also, Mark this is a non debate area of the phorum, and if you would like to engage others in this topic head on over to the debate table.

[phatcatholic]

moving this to the debate table......

[Michael D.]

this is all very interesting as a non physics/math/ whatever person...

woot for film majors! my numeric system goes 1 1.4 2 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22 32...
anyway... being interested in science and the what not this was a very interesting topic to read...

but aside from not quite understanding all of the details... i am left with one question.

Being able to view the universe from any point with that cs translation thing makes sense... and while im not quite sure how much i trust your evidence for geowhatis... against the evidence for some other point as the center of the universe. My question regards more of the theological perspective... Why does it matter if we are not the center of everything?

What does it mean to you that we are the center or are not?

I am having a hard time seeing how it matters where we are in relation to all the other stuff.

[Markjwyatt]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 7 2005, 02:07 PM']this is all very interesting as a non physics/math/ whatever person...

woot for film majors! my numeric system goes 1 1.4 2 2.8 4 5.6 8 11 16 22 32...
anyway... being interested in science and the what not this was a very interesting topic to read...

but aside from not quite understanding all of the details... i am left with one question.

Being able to view the universe from any point with that cs translation thing makes sense... and while im not quite sure how much i trust your evidence for geowhatis... against the evidence for some other point as the center of the universe. My question regards more of the theological perspective... Why does it matter if we are not the center of everything?

What does it mean to you that we are the center or are not?

I am having a hard time seeing how it matters where we are in relation to all the other stuff.
[right][snapback]676107[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I will discuss the theological implications in Part III (think of it as the second sequel). As far as your numeric system, I prefer the big numbers, because I like some depth in my field

But briefly, the Fathers unanomously interpreted Scripture geocentrically (per Trent and vat. I this is significant). Also, three Popes made officical declarations against heliocentrism and for geocentrism (including a Papl Bull).

These declarations have never been rescinded by the Church, and no new ones counter them.

So basically we have the Holy Spirit inspiring the Scriptures geocentrically, and protecting three Popes in favor of geocentrism, and yet no scientific evidence that:

1. The earth rotates
2. The earth translates

This is why I consider geocentrism.

Mark

[Michael D.]

But does it matter if it does translate or rotate?

or is that the part that you answer in the next section?

and, forgive me if i misunderstood, but wasn't that whole part about being able to shift the cs to another point basically saying that you can look at the universe from any perspective and every one is equally as valid? So if you were to put the origin on mars wouldnt the earth both translate and rotate when viewed from there? or does that not really mean that...

also, i should say that i much prefer the low numbers for their lack of depth in the field.

[Markjwyatt]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 8 2005, 01:26 AM']But does it matter if it does translate or rotate?

or is that the part that you answer in the next section?

and, forgive me if i misunderstood, but wasn't that whole part about being able to shift the cs to another point basically saying that you can look at the universe from any perspective and every one is equally as valid? So if you were to put the origin on mars wouldnt the earth both translate and rotate when viewed from there? or does that not really mean that... 

also, i should say that  i much prefer the low numbers for their lack of depth in the field.
[right][snapback]676723[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It does matter if it rotates or not. The Fathers upheld that the earth was stationary, neither rotating nor translating.

There is a French group (CESHE) who have proposed an earth rotating geocentric model, but they base this on a Coptic translation of Scripture being truer than the Hebrew and Vulgate.

Yes, per GR, you can make Mars the center. Still, I am using GR to show that you cannot dismiss geocentrism using current science.

Proving geocentrism is as hard as proving heliocentrism (or acentrism, etc.).

I guess if you are interested in this subject, the smaller f-numbers are better, so you can concentrate your focus on this. On the other hand it is good to have some clarity on the scientific background. It is good you are getting some exposure to it. (sorry, can't help myself. )

Mark