Hi im new here, looking for more info on Geocentrism.

[Scotty99]

From the transcripts i see differences between the two, but like you said they are both relative.

 

What i find crazy about these forums is that people only tend to disagree with you, they dont even for a second take into consideration what you are putting out there. To me this is the wrong way to look about life and the cosmos. I honestly feel bad for you if you cant see the points ive tried to make in the past couple pages of this thread. I was told at an early age to question everything, and i am thankful everyday since.

As an aside. I have an open invitation to anyone on this forum who would like to do a skype interview with me. I am not particularly good at internet babble on forums (as you can probably tell). But in real life when people look me in the eyes, i see right through them.

[studiot]

 

scotty99

 

they dont even for a second take into consideration what you are putting out there.

 

 

Exactly how is this scurrilous accusation consistent with the following

 

 

Studiot

Which was why I posted a reading reference to some newly published stuff that actually gave consideration to your questions and acknowledged the known deficiencies in the General Theory of Relativity.

 

And why do you ignore the rules discussion and of this forum and consistently fail to even attempt an answer my question?

Edited August 1, 2015 by studiot

[Scotty99]

Studiot based on everything ive read from you, you are a complete lost soul. I dont even know how to reply to things like:

 

If you google

" a wacky theory"

or

"a wacky theory that fits my prejudices"

you get plenty of nonsense.

or you could just listen to ajb instead and get the facts.

How do i respond to nonsense like this?

Edited August 1, 2015 by Scotty99

[ajb]

What i find crazy about these forums is that people only tend to disagree with you, they dont even for a second take into consideration what you are putting out there.

That is unfair. The truth is very little is posted in the speculations section that modern science agrees with.

 

Anyway, what you have put out there is the old idea of geocentricism which in one form or another does not still well with current theories and observations. The closest to an acceptable form would be 'weak geocentrism'; it is perfectly possible to consider the (class of) frame(s) that place the Earth at the centre of the solar system or even the Universe. However, such frames are not privileged in any fundamental way, though they maybe useful for calculations etc.

[Scotty99]

That is another thing that bothers me. What does "preferred frame" even mean in general relativity? I am only saying that the basis of relativity allows geocentrism, and on top of that i have hundreds of years of belief as a society that it was a truth! Umm what do you guys have again? 100 years of the same thing but you are superior because?

[studiot]

 

scotty99

Studiot based on everything ive read from you, you are a complete lost soul. I dont even know how to reply to things like:

........................

 

How do i respond to nonsense like this?

 

 

 

And the reference I gave you?

 

Why are you still ignoring what is said to you?

[Scotty99]

 

 

And the reference I gave you?

 

Why are you still ignoring what is said to you?

 

Since you wont actually say what the hell you are talking about i will assume you are talking about "

he Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity Paperback – 4 Feb 2014

by Pedro G. Ferreira

Is this correct? You want me to read a book from a guy ive never heard of and has 5 reviews on amazon? Is that what you are getting at?

[ajb]

What does "preferred frame" even mean in general relativity?

It means some frame (or more likely a class of such frames) that has some privileged role in the theory. One of the cornerstones of general relativity is that no such frames exist.

 

However, this must not be confused with our ability to select frames convenient for our use. Often because of symmetries one can find classes of frames that are adapted to the problem. Usually, these frames help with interpretations and calculations.

 

If we look at the solar system, the symmetries of that system tell us that placing the Sun at the centre of our coordinate system will simplify the description. Even in Newtonian theory this works well and gives us a real understanding of Kepler's laws. It is possible to pick the Earth to be the centre of the solar system, but this does not respect the natural symmetries here and so leads to a much more complicated description.

 

I am only saying that the basis of relativity allows geocentrism,

Yes, as a choice of coordinates. But again this is in no way privileged.

 

Is this correct? You want me to read a book from a guy ive never heard of and has 5 reviews on amazon? Is that what you are getting at?

 

You could try Clifford M. Will, The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Relativity 17 (2014), 4. The journal is open access.

Edited August 1, 2015 by ajb

[studiot]

 

You want me to read a book from a guy ive never heard of and has 5 reviews on amazon? Is that what you are getting at

 

 

Is this how you regard those with an unimpeachable track record in their field?

 

Or do you have such a low disregard for all your fellow men?

 

 

Pedro G. Ferreira is Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Oxford and a fellow and tutor in Physics at Oriel College, Oxford. He has held research positions at the University of California at Berkeley, at CERN in Geneva and visiting positions at the University of Geneva, the Institute of Astrophysics in Paris, Princeton University, the Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara and the Galileo Galilei Institute in Florence. He is a member of the Royal Astronomical Society, a Fellow of the Institute of Physics and has held a University Research Fellowship of the Royal Society.

He has published over 120 papers in international journals and conference proceedings, has delivered over 150 talks at universities, institutes and conferences all over Europe, America, Asia and Africa. His area of expertise is Cosmology, the Early Universe and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. He has pioneered research in the relic radiation left over from the Big Bang, the nature of the dark Universe (such as dark matter and dark energy) and has led the way in studying alternatives to Einstein's theory of General Relativity. He has given public interviews and lectures all over the world and is regularly invited onto television to comment on Einstein's theories, black holes, the Big Bang and the beauty of mathematics.

Pedro G. Ferreira has written extensively outside academia, popularizing science. His book "State of the Universe" (W&N 2006, Phoenix, 2007), a primer in modern cosmology, was widely reviewed and is now required reading on a number of undergraduate cosmology courses. He has written for Nature, Science, New Scientist, Physics World, Physics Today, Scientific American, Sky at Night, CERN Courier, BBC Focus, The Guardian. His most recent book, "The Perfect Theory: a Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity" was published by Harcourt (US), Little Brown (UK) and is being translated and published in thirteen more countries.

 

 

Once again I have underlined the relevent part of the passage.

[Scotty99]

See again this confuses me. You say:

 

yes, as a choice of coordinates. But again this is in no way privileged.

 

What does "privilege" have to do with anything? The way you word it seems like a denouncement in some way, even when relativity itself allows geocentrism to exist.

Studiot the only reason i found your post is by going back to page 2 to see what the hell you are talking about! I know nothing of this man, do you really expect me to read a book before i answer your post? How about you give me a post it note version of his alternative theories on relativity?

[StringJunky]

See again this confuses me. You say:

 

What does "privilege" have to do with anything? The way you word it seems like a denouncement in some way, even when relativity itself allows geocentrism to exist.

You need to go and read some science books. AJB is using absolutely bog-standard terms

[ajb]

See again this confuses me. You say:

 

What does "privilege" have to do with anything? The way you word it seems like a denouncement in some way, even when relativity itself allows geocentrism to exist.

We are free to make other choices here. That is the point. There is no true fundamental role in putting the Earth or Sun or anything else at the centre of everything. It maybe a useful choice for some calculations etc, but that is it.

[Scotty99]

You need to go and read some science books. AJB is using absolutely bog-standard terms

 

Ok, what good does that do anyone? How about you explain to me what "privilege" means in general relativity?

[swansont]

Ill just link this:

 

"Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O' [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c. However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions." [/size]

 

(An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)[/size]

 

Pay particular attention to: [/size]"If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."[/size]

 

Yes, it's true that the measured value of c can take on other values depending on the strength of gravity, but we know the strength of gravity. You would have to show this is true for earth's gravity.

 

IOW, a body at a distance of ~4.1 billion km will have to rotate at c. With the earth's weak gravity, you could argue that this isn't a violation SR, owing to these gravitational effects. But an object 2300x further away (just one light year distant) has to be going at 2300c, and I challenge you to show that this can be reconciled with our gravitational field, rather than an arbitrarily chosen gravitational field.

 

Plus, you are ignoring that if you invoke relativity you are assuming gravity works, and that cannot be reconciled with epicycles. This isn't an á la carte effect. If you invoke relativity you have to accept all of it.

[Scotty99]

We are free to make other choices here. That is the point. There is no true fundamental role in putting the Earth or Sun or anything else at the centre of everything. It maybe a useful choice for some calculations etc, but that is it.

 

Ok perfect, thats exactly what relativity is at its core, why a special phrase in "privileged"? Again guys i CANNOT make more clear that i am not a religious fanatic. What i am talking about coming from a uber religious person would be off putting and i get that, but for me this is pure logic and someone trying to figure out how the universe works.

[ajb]

How about you explain to me what "privilege" means in general relativity?

Frames or classes of frames that play some special role in theory.

 

Maybe an example is useful. In special relativity we do have a privileged class of frames, the inertial frames of reference. These are privileged in the sense that the theory is in its 'simplest form' when we use the inertial frames. However, we are free to use more general frames and the physics would look more complicated and we would need to take some care with interpretations, but fundamentally nothing is different in these non-inertial frames. No such 'simplifying frames' exist in general relativity.

 

But again, this must not be confused with 'nice' frames that we can pick when studying particular solutions of general relativity.

[studiot]

You stated

 

 

if you google "axis of evil, cosmic microwave background"

 

 

 

This was a pretty insulting remark, again I have underlined the relevent part.

To which I commented

 

studiot post#7

If you google

" a wacky theory"

or

"a wacky theory that fits my prejudices"

 

you get plenty of nonsense.

 

or you could just listen to ajb instead and get the facts.

 

Now what part of this are you claiming is not true?

 

Have you actually tried googling those questions?

 

Or are you saying ajb is not offering facts?

 

Since you were clearly intent on insulting everyone I left the thread for a while and then simply offered you something that might be useful in post#23.

 

You have ignored this until now where your reaction is again dismissive, condescending, and insulting.

 

 

Since you wont actually say what the hell you are talking about i will assume you are talking about "

he Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle over General Relativity Paperback – 4 Feb 2014

by Pedro G. Ferreira

Is this correct? You want me to read a book from a guy ive never heard of and has 5 reviews on amazon? Is that what you are getting at?

 

[Scotty99]

Wait what? Have you studied the CMB? There is NOTHING you can say to me that will convince me other than the earth is in a special place in the universe, this has been known for 20 years and CMB data is not being taught in school or talked about anywhere else. How was i being insulting by inferring CMB data that has been known for years and unexplainable?

Frames or classes of frames that play some special role in theory.

Maybe an example is useful. In special relativity we do have a privileged class of frames, the inertial frames of reference. These are privileged in the sense that the theory is in its 'simplest form' when we use the inertial frames. However, we are free to use more general frames and the physics would look more complicated and we would need to take some care with interpretations, but fundamentally nothing is different in these non-inertial frames. No such 'simplifying frames' exist in general relativity.

But again, this must not be confused with 'nice' frames that we can pick when studying particular solutions of general relativity.

 

Maybe thats over my head but it sounds exactly the same as general relativity, please elaborate if i am missing important differences.

[ajb]

Maybe thats over my head but it sounds exactly the same as general relativity, please elaborate if i am missing important differences.

I thought we were discussing general relativity. Indeed everything I have said is consistent with general relativity, though it is probabily also consistent with several alternatives.

[Scotty99]

Plus, you are ignoring that if you invoke relativity you are assuming gravity works, and that cannot be reconciled with epicycles. This isn't an á la carte effect. If you invoke relativity you have to accept all of it.

 

 

Sorry i missed your post originally. In geocentrism gravity is a thing, the mathematics is the same whether the earth is still or moving....where did you get the idea to the contrary?

[Strange]

What i find crazy about these forums is that people only tend to disagree with you

 

Well, when you (repeatedly) make untrue statements, what do you expect?

I am only saying that the basis of relativity allows geocentrism

 

And no one disagrees with that. Why are you still flogging a dead horse (or dead strawman).

 

There are two forms of geocentrism: weak ("the Earth can be the centre of the universe", which is true but meaningless) and strong ("the Earth is the centre of the universe", which is clearly false).

 

and on top of that i have hundreds of years of belief as a society that it was a truth!

 

So what. Belief is irrelevant in science.

 

Umm what do you guys have again?

 

Evidence.

See again this confuses me. You say:

 

What does "privilege" have to do with anything?

 

It means that it is "special" in some way. If that were true, then physics would be different because it would be possible to detect that fact, measure absolute motion and absolute velocity, and so on. In other words Lorentz invariance would be violated. It isn't therefore "strong" geocentrism is wrong.

 

Wait what? Have you studied the CMB?

 

You have mentioned this before but failed to explain the relevance. Why is that?

 

There is NOTHING you can say to me that will convince me other than the earth is in a special place in the universe

 

Then this discussion is pointless. If you are not interested in science or evidence, just your religious beliefs, why are you posting here.

 

, this has been known for 20 years and CMB data is not being taught in school or talked about anywhere else.

 

The CMB has been known for much longer than 20 years and has been much discussed in many places over the decades. What is the point of all these lies?

Sorry i missed your post originally. In geocentrism gravity is a thing, the mathematics is the same whether the earth is still or moving....where did you get the idea to the contrary?

 

Everything is the same whether the Earth is still or moving. That is what "not privileged" means. That is why your belief is not supportable.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Strange

[Delta1212]

I am a firm believer in meocentrism, that is, that I am the exact center of the universe. Luckily, relativity supports this at least as well as it does geocentrism, so I have some pretty solid footing to work off of.

[Klaynos]

 

Sorry i missed your post originally. In geocentrism gravity is a thing, the mathematics is the same whether the earth is still or moving....where did you get the idea to the contrary?

Care to show the maths that prices this?

[swansont]

 

Sorry i missed your post originally. In geocentrism gravity is a thing, the mathematics is the same whether the earth is still or moving....where did you get the idea to the contrary?

 

I got the idea from the fact that the solutions to orbits using gravity are ellipses, not epicycles. The mathematics is not the same. You have to transform into another reference frame to get geocentrism to work mathematically.

[Scotty99]

Care to show the maths that prices this?

 

Oh clearly i dont have the know how for this, math was probably the wrong word to use i just mean in general relativty geocentrism can fit just on the basis of the theory.

 

I saw a very curious news article the other day, what do you guys think about it? (im not sure if its huge news in the science world yet)

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe