geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occams_razor

Thank you for posting the link to William of Ockham's famous (and terribly misapplied, in this case) hypothesis.

Following is a quote from Imre Lakatos' "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs: Philosophical Papers", edited by J. Worrell and G. Currie, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press 1978, 1999, p. 173-174:

"The superior simplicity of the Copernican theory was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy.The myth of superior simplicity was dispelled by the careful and professional work of modern historians. They reminded us that while Copernican theory solves certain problems in a simpler way than does the Ptolemaic one, the price of the simplicfication is unexpected complication in the solution of other problems......I think it is fair to say that the 'simplicity balance' between Ptolemy's and Copernicus' system is roughly even."

It is also important to note that, while both acentrism and geocentrism can (according to General Relativity, they MUST BE ABLE TO) equally account for all observations, all kinematics, and all dynamics, the geocentric system is specifically superior under Occam's razor in that it provides a physical, rather than a fictitious, derivation for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, thus precisely satisfying William of Ockham's requirement.

I just find it funny someone actually cited wikipedia believing it to be a credible source. And they say Christians aren't logical...

Originally posted by willofthewisp
I just find it funny someone actually cited wikipedia believing it to be a credible source. And they say Christians aren't logical...

Wikipedia can be good and bad. It is just as wrong consider it to be 100% correct as it is to discount all together.

"I assume you're using "data" in a loose sense, since I've slogged through some of the recent stuff and it's not really convincing, just sad."

If I were trying to argue your position, I'd be sad too :-)

"Heck, a concrete "center" doesn't even exist to the universe"

"...it's not uniform on all sides and changes constantly based upon expansion. We'd have to be fluctuating wildly in space just to keep up."

>>But of course "expansion" is an hypothesis, not a fact. There are gigantic difficulties with the "expansion" hypothesis, which rests solely and entirely upon one single notion: that redshifts are exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity.

Some rather huge problems with the "redshift=recession=expanding universe" hypothesis include:

1. The quasars are now seen to be arranged in a series of regularly-spaced, concentric shells, such concentric shells being centered upon Earth (the shells would not appear if the quasars were viewed from anywhere else in the Universe). This, needless to say, is in direct contradiction to the postulates of General Relativity, which assume isotropic and homogenous distribution of matter throughout the universe;

2. Some quasars must now be assumed to be putting out, individually, energies equal to tens of thousands of galaxies, in violation of all known laws of physics;

2. The redshifts of the supposed "earliest" (actually, just the highest-redshift) objects reveal fully-formed galaxies billions of years earlier than can be accomodated under the assumptions governing Big Bang cosmology;

3. The redshifts of some objects imply a recessionary velocity greater than the speed of light, again in direct contradiction to General Relativity and the presently accepted laws of physics.

So I would certainly say that you have plenty to be "sad" about......but cheer up! It's always fun to watch a reigning scientific paradigm collapse under the wqeight of its collision with observational facts. Happens all the time-- every century or two at least. It is wonderfully good news, because it invariably means we are in the process of learning something new!

"It's one thing for scientific ideas and religious ideas to coexist (most theists readily embrace evolution, for example, and rightly so). But it's just an attack on reason to hold articles of faith so far above empirical data that one manages to contort and pervert facts, or simply make them up, to accommodate one's views. To me, such cases are quite beyond the effort it would require, simply because reason has no place within their beliefs (unless it supports their beliefs, of course). "

>>Maybe you have confused my argument with a religious one. A quick glance back over all of my posts will show that I have never advanced any religious component to any of my arguments. Mine has been strictly a scientific argument.

"It's better to understand that they exist on the fringes of societal opinion, and leave them be while we make progress with those who work with factual evidence to progress our knowledge, rather than refuting it to further an incomprehensible religious agenda."

>>>Heh heh heh. The old "pay no attention to those marginalized folks on the edges of societal opinion" approach. Sooner or later, it is always predictable that the scientifically illiterate will resort to the infamous "argument from majority opinion".

As if 51% agreement on something somehow related in any scientific manner whatsoever, to its truthfulness.

No student of the history of science could ever be hornswoggled by THAT particular whopper.

"He uses epicycles to explain retrograde motion."

Actually, I don't. The neo-Tychonic system, which has the planets orbitting the Sun in ellipses, while the Sun orbits the Earth, will accurately produce all the observations of the night sky, precisely as the neo-Copernican or Keplerian heliocentric system does, including an epicycle-free Martian retrograde.

Honesty requires, however, that I admit that, in the URL I posted, the authors DO employ an epicycle in the Martian orbit.

Unfortunately, the correct, epicycle-free animation of the Mars retrograde is on a copy-protected CD-ROM, and presently unavailable online. I highly recommend it, however, it comes with the book "Galileo Was Wrong", by Robert A. Sungenis, Ph. D., and Robert J. Bennett, Ph.D.

You can order it here:

http://catholicintl.com/products/books/gwwprint.htm

And again my compliments to AngryManatee, who posted the best anti-geocentrism argument on the thread so far, (even if he did lift it from Gary Hoge, who withdrew it from his website after it was refuted a few years back) and also caught the epicycle in the animation.

Kudos!

Please stick around for Round II.

I promise you, it will be worth it :-)

"Wikipedia can be good and bad. It is just as wrong consider it to be 100% correct as it is to discount all together."-----shaky

Well said. To be honest, I use wikipedia for general knowledge and usually if something scientific is on there, it was posted by someone who knows about it. But it's not a good idea to use it when writing a paper or debating someone.

Originally posted by willofthewisp
"Wikipedia can be good and bad. It is just as wrong consider it to be 100% correct as it is to discount all together."-----shaky

Well said. To be honest, I use wikipedia for general knowledge and usually if something scientific is on there, it was posted by someone who knows about it. But it's not a good idea to use it when writing a paper or debating someone.

Just click the "quote" button on the post you want to quote.

Then type your message after the last [/B][/QUOTE] markers and it will like like every else's.

Some people use the "Quick Quote" button as well...like Bardock42. If you want to quote multiple people, make sure you quote them in order with the quick quote feature and pay attention that you respond to their posts in chronological order...Robtard throws a hissy-fit if you do not respond in chronological order.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Thank you for posting the link to William of Ockham's famous (and terribly misapplied, in this case) hypothesis.

Following is a quote from Imre Lakatos' "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs: Philosophical Papers", edited by J. Worrell and G. Currie, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press 1978, 1999, p. 173-174:

It is also important to note that, while both acentrism and geocentrism can (according to General Relativity, they MUST BE ABLE TO) equally account for all observations, all kinematics, and all dynamics, the geocentric system is specifically superior under Occam's razor in that it provides a physical, rather than a fictitious, derivation for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces, thus precisely satisfying William of Ockham's requirement.

Mr Lakatos:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience48.mp3

"The problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience has grave implications also for the institutionalization of criticism. Copernicus's theory was banned by the Catholic Church in 1616 because it was said to be pseudoscientific. It was taken off the index in 1820 because by that time the Church deemed that facts had proved it and therefore it became scientific. The Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party in 1949 declared Mendelian genetics pseudoscientific and had its advocates, like Academician Vavilov, killed in concentration camps; after Vavilov's murder Mendelian genetics was rehabilitated; but the Party's right to decide what is science and publishable and what is pseudoscience and punishable was upheld. The new liberal Establishment of the West also exercises the right to deny freedom of speech to what it regards as pseudoscience, as we have seen in the case of the debate concerning race and intelligence. All these judgments were inevitably based on some sort of demarcation criterion. And this is why the problem of demarcation between science and pseudoscience is not a pseudo-problem of armchair philosophers: it has grave ethical and political implications."

Originally posted by inimalist
Mr Lakatos:

http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience48.mp3

I was expecting a witty jingle.

😒

But I'm honestly shocked you're even putting in the time to debate him.

Trans, you're wrong. This isn't even accepted by fringe groups. It's not people overlooking facts, it's not some conspiracy, it's not an attempt to trump religious doctrine (as if it even could for the devout). Believe it if you want, but don't pretend that it has intellectual merit or is a legitimate scientific claim. Scientists don't have an agenda to cover anything up...they have an obligation to empiricism. If there was more than one possible way to interpret the data, they'd be the first to tell us. Hell, they'd be chomping at the bit to be the first to publish it in order to get the notoriety for discovering the possibility. The pseudo-scientists and religious zealots trumpet the cause on the fringes, so it's not like the world isn't aware of the idea of geocentricity...thus, you're wrong.

I generally dislike appeals to authority (not that I need to, with the good job in's been doing on the rational front). But occasionally appeals to authority are entirely correct and the best way to point out the obvious.

I bet that if we made a flat earth thread, we'd get a few proponents as well. Or young-earth creationists (different than ID, though only by degree). I liken it almost to a poison of the mind, and really see such claims as more sad than anything else.

...

Also, nothing wrong with wiki. If there's a problem with specific info from a link, say so. But categorically dismissing it is a false generalization when the vast majority of info from wiki is valid.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I was expecting a witty jingle.

😒

But I'm honestly shocked you're even putting in the time to debate him.

Trans, you're wrong. This isn't even accepted by fringe groups. It's not people overlooking facts, it's not some conspiracy, it's not an attempt to trump religious doctrine (as if it even could for the devout). Believe it if you want, but don't pretend that it has intellectual merit or is a legitimate scientific claim. Scientists don't have an agenda to cover anything up...they have an obligation to empiricism. If there was more than one possible way to interpret the data, they'd be the first to tell us. Hell, they'd be chomping at the bit to be the first to publish it in order to get the notoriety for discovering the possibility. The pseudo-scientists and religious zealots trumpet the cause on the fringes, so it's not like the world isn't aware of the idea of geocentricity...thus, you're wrong.

I generally dislike appeals to authority (not that I need to, with the good job in's been doing on the rational front). But occasionally appeals to authority are entirely correct and the best way to point out the obvious.

I bet that if we made a flat earth thread, we'd get a few proponents as well. Or young-earth creationists (different than ID, though only by degree). I liken it almost to a poison of the mind, and really see such claims as more sad than anything else.

...

Also, nothing wrong with wiki. If there's a problem with specific info from a link, say so. But categorically dismissing it is a false generalization when the vast majority of info from wiki is valid.

ps:he thinks the earth being flat is rediculus. trans and myself would be very surprised to find someone supporting that position

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I was expecting a witty jingle.

😒

But I'm honestly shocked you're even putting in the time to debate him.

Its actually a really good talk, and it is pretty easy to see where he would come down on geocentricism after listening.

but no, I get your point, there isn't any use arguing

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ya know i find myself agreeing with trans on the subject slightly. not in his position, but you should at least give him the time of day 😐 he's providing arguments and is usually knocking down most peoples evidence. instead of ignoring him and letting the thread and arguments continue, perhaps you could just crush him. i dont have the scientific knowledge to argue with him, however i know that people like you do.

he isn't providing "scientific evidence", he is providing post hoc analysis and mathematical modeling. He would require a single piece of empirical evidence that is incompatible with heliocentrism to be making anything close to a scientific claim.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ps:he thinks the earth being flat is rediculus. trans and myself would be very surprised to find someone supporting that position

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

"Trans, you're wrong."

>>I certainly hope you can do better than that. With all due respect, "Trans, you're wrong" is not exactly a compelling argument. Considering the scientific evidence I have posted, your response here can honestly be considered "pathetic".

Sorry.

But it is.

"This isn't even accepted by fringe groups."

Fringe groups according to whom? You? Defined by whom? Your fifties-antique-car restoration Tuesday night bowling club?

Albert Einstein has told you over and over again that I am precisely correct in assuring you that General Relativity REQUIRES that the statements:

1. The earth is at rest and th sun moves, and
2. The sun moves and the earth is at rest,

are SCIENTIFICALLY EQUIVALENT.

Now are we expected to sit here like dopes and allow you to dismiss Albert Einstein as a "fringe group"? I think not.

Now take your medicine like a good boy:

Albert Einstein agrees with "fringe group" trans!

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

"It's not people overlooking facts, it's not some conspiracy, it's not an attempt to trump religious doctrine (as if it even could for the devout). "

>>I agree. In your case, it is something much more frightening. In your case, it is a simple, wilful decision to ignore facts, evidence, and logic, and resort to the kind of blustering chutzpah that would make a three-card-monty operator blush for shame.

"Believe it if you want, but don't pretend that it has intellectual merit or is a legitimate scientific claim. "

>>Now there is a word that applies to someone who, having never engaged a single one of my scientific citations, asserts that my quote from the founder of modern relativistic physics does not constitute a "legitimate scientific claim"..........

It begins with an "h".

"Scientists don't have an agenda to cover anything up..."

Go see Ben Stein's movie "Expelled", chum. You are charmingly naive when it comes to your modern scientific priesthood, unfortunately for your touching acolyte's faith in "scientists", they got as many warts as anybody else.

"they have an obligation to empiricism."

>>What a lovely thing empiricism is......ummm. Let's see here. Would "space time curvature" be empirical? No? How about "infinitely expanding spacetime"? How about "space time foam"? "Multiple universes"? Can you see, taste, touch, smell, or hear any of these utterly NON-EMPIRICAL mathematical hypotheses? No? Oh, I see. It's only empirical if the Tuesday Night Bowling Club and Fifties Auto Restoration Club's Science Committee Chairman Digi here says so......

"If there was more than one possible way to interpret the data, they'd be the first to tell us."

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

Did you HEAR that, Digi?
That was Albert Einstein, telling you that there is more than one way to interpret the data.

There is a certain clinical psychology lesson underway here, which I am fascinated by. You apparently cannot hear him. This is fascinating, and a little terrifying.

"Hell, they'd be chomping at the bit to be the first to publish it in order to get the notoriety for discovering the possibility."

>>But they DID publish it, Digi. Back in 1938. Every scientifically literate person in the world knows that this is the foundational postulate of Relativity, and yet here we have you lecturing me on what is and isn't "fringe science". I only wish that you were a comedian, it would be a hilarious routine,,,,,but you ain't that kind of subtle, are ya?

No indeedy.

"The pseudo-scientists and religious zealots trumpet the cause on the fringes, so it's not like the world isn't aware of the idea of geocentricity...thus, you're wrong."

>>Well, there you have it sports fans. "thus, you're wrong". My my my. In the face of such powerful, cogent, well-reasoned, closely supported and scientifically buttressed argumentation, what's a poor fringie to do?

I guess we'll just let Al Einstein try and get through whatever fascinating self-induced mental incapacitation is preventing Digi here from recognizing the stupendous fool he has made of himself tonight:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

Lets just state for the record that he is in no way replying to anything inimalist says.

Trans: Can you explain how, in a universe where general relativity exists, the Earth can be said to be motionless, when motion is relative, and any motion in the planets could relatively be seen as motion in the Earth?

doesn't that make the idea of the Earth being the center of the universe meaningless?

oh, and evidence?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
There is a certain clinical psychology lesson underway here, which I am fascinated by. You apparently cannot hear him. This is fascinating, and a little terrifying.

The "clinical psychology" lesson would actually be a "cognitive psychology" lesson

It would have little to do with hearing, but more to do with activation in your conflict resolution centers, being resolved through glib and automatic meme replication that allows the memory and reward centers to reinforce your beliefs, much like drug addiction works.

oh, tell me, what misquote from what name dropped scientist can you give me? what book quote (notice, not journal or research paper quotes) mentions in the most indirect sense what I just said?

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Turn that snotty attitude of yours a few notches down Transfinitum.

Originally posted by Transfinitum

You poor fellow. First get some sleep. Then go learn what a gyroscope is. Go learn the distinction between centrifugal, inertial, and gravitational forces. It will assist you in making a less shriekingly obvious fool of yourself once you have made the colossal mistake of venturing into debate with a knowledgeable opponent.

Ohh Joy. A crackpot self proclaiming to be a knowledgeable opponent.

Einstein's relativity allows all forms of reference frame: heliocentrism, geocentrism, Pluto-centrism, my finger-centrism to be valid theoretically. The rational way, just like what modern astronomers do, is to sift through all this and select the reference frame that produces the most number and most accurate predictions on the particular system of interest. The proven best way to do this in astronomy is to select the more or most the massive object in the system as the frame of reference because you wouldnt have to overcomplicate things by introducing weird ass fictitious forces to counter or compensate for gravity which is subject to an objects mass. In a planet-moon system like the earth and Moon, the planet, Earth, is the ideal reference frame. In a star-planet system like the Sun and earth, the sun is the ideal reference frame. In a galaxy-star system, the galactic center is the ideal reference.

The problem is, is when crackpots with a religious agenda in mind, choose a geocentric reference frame and apply it to everything in the Universe and needlessly apply centrifugal, inertial, gravitational forces etc. in overly complicated ways just to make it work. As far as we know, just think of the energy discrepancy involve and tell me which one is more feasible: the Earth moving around or the entire Universe sweeping around every 24 hours. According to current astronomers, the presence of a universal rotation would induce a type of change in the Cosmic Microwave Background temperature but this has not been observed.

Originally posted by Transfinitum

Now, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived has had seventeen pages and several hundred posts in which to grasp the simple principle of Relativity, which Albert Einstein has tried to assist him in coming to grasp, thus far alas to no avail:

Albert Einstein attempts, for the umpteenth time, to educate poor Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived:

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

**Im gonna cut here because the rest is a bad application and demonstation of gyroscopic principles. Reading it will cost you 2 million dead brain cells.**

Quote Mining, how cute. Your basing your "knowledge" of Relativity on the basis of a Quote Mine. Quotes cannot substitute for real evidence not to mention it can be misleading and taken out of context, just like what youre doing with Einstein quote above. Einstein is playing devil's advocate to heliocentrism (w/in the context of Solar system) by saying that the Copernican and Ptolemaic are equally justified in order to illustrate the there is no such thing as a preferred reference frame. Nowhere did he said anything in support of geocentrism. Try reading your own quotes next time instead of simply copy and pasting it where you get it. Anyway, trying to use relativity’s arguments that maintain no preferred reference frame exists against the arguments for heliocentrism, Pluto-centrism, my finger, and then using it to prove geocentrism is bullsh!t. Your overly complicated universal gyroscopic effect to explain why the Earth could stay stationary/ act like a barycenter while the rest of the Universe revolves around it could also be used on the Moon (or any celestial body even a speck of dust) and not just Earth. Why apply universal gyroscopic stability only on Earth?

Second, that quote is taken from 1938. Physics have changed a lot since then. Try finding a more recent quote in support of geocentrism. Anyway, Einstein himself is not infallible. The man at best was "cool" towards Quantum Mechanics which in light of what we know about it today, wasnt very smart.

Originally posted by Transfinitum

.... blah-blah-blah .... General relativity .... blah-blah-blah ....gravitational, inertial, and centrifugal forces .... blah-blah-blah .... reference frames.

This overly long post is the same as the first one i quoted. Just read my answers there. By the way, why pick arbitrarily the Earth as the barycenter of the Universe? I could just copy your geocentric proofs and apply it to Venus or to the sun instead and it would work without a hitch even if its not in the Bible.

>>I assume that would be ALBERT Einstein. The physicist. That would be the wrong dude to have cited, since good old Albert admitted he needed the ether back, to fix Special Relativity's problems. The ether is back in General Relativity, as Albert is about to tell you, below:

Originally posted by Transfinitum

quote:
"In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…..once again 'empty space' appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

--Albert Einstein, "Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relatitivtatstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt" Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Sungenis, „Galileo Was Wrong", CAI 2006, p136

So again, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived. We see the hilarious extent of the gap which exists between what you imagine you know, and what is actually so.

Especially when it comes to having the faintest clue about ANYTHING pertaining to Albert Einstein…..

I suggest you catch up with the times. You would find aether or ether in the dust bin of discarded scientific theories. I suggest you double check on your physics instead of relying on shady characters like Sugenis (who iirc, was more of a theologian) to provide it for you. No need to conceive of aether theories when light (electromagnetic waves) travels in a vacuum as so conveniently proven by Albert Einstein. With the development of special relativity, the need to account for a single universal frame had disappeared—and aether went along. His mathematical results were right but his opinion about the aether is not. I believe i've already said a thing or two about Einstein's fallibility. He is a man of ironies. He doesnt like quantum mechanics, "calling it a dice-game" but his work on the photo-electric effect was a huge impetus for its development.

Max Born, a contemporary of Einstein has this to say about the man's prejudice, clinging to the aether and redefining it into something else arbitrarily, even though his own work disproved it:

"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether", whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether" is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned by usage in this way, probably quite convenient.
From now on ether as a substance vanishes from theory.[5]"
-Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962. Page 224.

(uhh . . . 2 be continued).

Originally posted by Transfinitum

.... blah-blah-blah .... centrifugal force .... blah-blah-blah ....

Let me see if i remember this right. Centrifugal force is the apparent force, equal and opposite to the centripetal force, drawing a rotating body away from the center of rotation, caused by the inertia of the body. Suppose i have a ball with a string atttached to it. If i twirl it around with my hand, the ball will revolve to it in a circular path because the force of the string (centripetal) pulls the ball towards my hand. The mass(or inertia) of the ball (centrifugal) pushes out in the opposite direction away from my hand. In your bucket example, the handle of the bucket is the centripetal force, the mass of the water inside the bucket is the centrifugal; so far so good. But the centrifugal force is not the one causing the water's displacement and forcing it to form a concave surface, its air, exerting a centrifugal force of its own to the water. If you spin this bucket of water in a vacuum, the water would stay flat at the bottom. I do believe you and your geocentric buddies are twisting/misunderstanding Thierring and Newton on this.

Now, lets apply centrifugal force to your geocentric, rotating universe. The hand at the center of the motion will be the Earth, the ball at the end of the string would be the massive Andromeda Galaxy and the string would be, you guessed it, gravity. Needless to say, how could the Earth's pitiful gravitation counter the mass of the Andromeda galaxy and put in orbit around it and not wander around out of place in the Universe. And the distance, 2 million light years(?), is huge. Earth's gravity is negligible that far. And to move around in 24 hours at that distance is just breaking all sorts of physical laws.

Since Earth's gravity certainly isnt strong enough to do the job which i assumed some ad hoc force is working here like some wall to which the celestial body is pinned to assist gravity. I've heard some geocentrist assume the aether as a rigid . . . . uhh something that holds the celestial bodies even though it doesnt have those in classical physics. Anyway,so many unnecessary complications just to prove that galaxies and stars revolve around a planet. Do elucidate more.

And lets not be to harsh on our "self-proclaimed knowledgeable" poster Trans. I dont know about the other posters but i enjoy his snotty of attitude. Maybe we could be snotty only towards each other (if that can be arranged). Im thinking of taking off the latex and do some as$ reaming 😆 .

Originally written by Einstein
The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [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 CS [coordinate systems].

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

I think the first error is that it is not page 212, but in fact page 224 where this quote is taken from (my library appears to have the same copy as you are sourcing)

I've taken the liberty of scanning the pages of the small section where he says this.

While Templares covered pretty much anything I would have had to say about this, and much better than I would have:

Originally posted by Templares
Quote Mining, how cute. Your basing your "knowledge" of Relativity on the basis of a Quote Mine. Quotes cannot substitute for real evidence not to mention it can be misleading and taken out of context, just like what youre doing with Einstein quote above. Einstein is playing devil's advocate to heliocentrism (w/in the context of Solar system) by saying that the Copernican and Ptolemaic are equally justified in order to illustrate the there is no such thing as a preferred reference frame. Nowhere did he said anything in support of geocentrism. Try reading your own quotes next time instead of simply copy and pasting it where you get it. Anyway, trying to use relativity’s arguments that maintain no preferred reference frame exists against the arguments for heliocentrism, Pluto-centrism, my finger, and then using it to prove geocentrism is bullsh!t. Your overly complicated universal gyroscopic effect to explain why the Earth could stay stationary/ act like a barycenter while the rest of the Universe revolves around it could also be used on the Moon (or any celestial body even a speck of dust) and not just Earth. Why apply universal gyroscopic stability only on Earth?

Second, that quote is taken from 1938. Physics have changed a lot since then. Try finding a more recent quote in support of geocentrism. Anyway, Einstein himself is not infallible. The man at best was "cool" towards Quantum Mechanics which in light of what we know about it today, wasnt very smart.

It may be interesting reading for everyone, however, it is abundantly clear that Einstein is NOT supporting a geocentric universe, but in fact saying that ANY centrism is not possible in general relativity (or rather, you can frame anything as the center).

I also picked up the Lakatos book, which is thrilling (I love philosophy of science). Not to spill the beans, but the quoting from his work is also HIGHLY selective and very misleading. Lakatos himself would be appalled at the way his work was being manipulated.

From looking up both quotes, high levels of intellectual dishonesty can be seen in the very basic arguments that Trans has been attempting to make. I, however, do not blame him. As with JIA and other theocrat posters, I assume these were retrieved elsewhere, and are just being spewed out based on the triggers he reads in post responses (aka post hoc reasoning, which Lakatos is highly critical of, which is funny, as someone quoting him would have gotten that....)

The quote appears on the 3rd scan:

http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5185/einstein001xh3.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6876/einstein002yd5.jpg
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/4769/einstein003pp1.jpg
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/1889/einstein004xa4.jpg

EDIT: CS refers to coordinate systems

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ya know i find myself agreeing with trans on the subject slightly. not in his position, but you should at least give him the time of day 😐 he's providing arguments and is usually knocking down most peoples evidence. instead of ignoring him and letting the thread and arguments continue, perhaps you could just crush him. i dont have the scientific knowledge to argue with him, however i know that people like you do.

ps:he thinks the earth being flat is rediculus. trans and myself would be very surprised to find someone supporting that position

In's doing fine on the scientific front. Not much else I'd add.

Also, why waste my time? There's a certain point where arguing patently absurd ideas actually emboldens the idea more than knocks it down...because giving it any attention at all is far more than it deserves. It's the same reason people like Dawkins and Gould (when he was alive) refused to debate creationists. The publicity alone from such an event would be a bigger blow to science than any argument the duo could make.

But the fact of the matter is, the scientific proof is there. Knocking down every one of trans' points, or pointing out the flaws in his thinking (again, which in is doing fine on) won't change his mind. His thoughts are so warped by faith that reason doesn't enter the equation. Debating would be like beating one's head against a brick wall in attempting to break it. It won't break, and you'll only get a headache.

Science is provisional. Therein lies its strength. Faith is dogmatic, rigid. Therein lies its fault. To someone fully entrenched in the latter, the former has no affect because any stretch of reason is a mere pittance to bring it into accord with one's beliefs.