Let's put geocentrism into textbooks

“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

"I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/

Note on the second quote: Mr. Plait is referring to geocentrism with a “little g,” not Geocentrism with a “big G.” The whole lesson from his article is that the geocentric frame is just as valid (geocentrism with a little g) as the heliocentric frame, as long as you don’t claim it’s the absolute frame (meaning Geocentrism, with a big G), as in the following quote from the same Plait article: “That’s where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there; I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.” 

Also note that throughout this article, I am talking about geocentrism with a little g, as Mr. Plait puts it.

Clearly, most modern scientists discretely acknowledge that the geocentric frame is just as valid as the heliocentric one. The only objection that can be made against the geocentric frame is that it cannot, according to relativity, be chosen as THE frame, the absolute frame. The honest scientist must proclaim that he is neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist. He can be either. There is no one correct frame; rather, there is a multitude of equally correct reference frames, and we can choose among them, so long as we don’t claim that any particular one is absolute. This MUST be the modern scientist’s perspective on the subject of geocentric versus heliocentric.

Why, then, does every science textbook present the heliocentric view as if it were the “correct” frame? The way astronomy is currently taught in the textbooks should, in the spirit of Mr. Phil Plait, be called Heliocentrism, with a big H. And please, let’s not quibble that the textbooks don’t present a sun-centered frame, but rather one where the planets orbit the sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy, which orbits the center of the local cluster, etc. The fact is that schools teach the model where the planets orbit the sun as if it were THE one true reference frame. Why? Why is the heliocentric model the one presented to school children? If the geocentric frame is just as valid as the heliocentric, why not present the geocentric model in textbooks, rather than the heliocentric?

Could it be that scientists don’t want children “getting it into their heads” that the geocentric perspective is just as valid as the heliocentric, and that in fact, despite claims to the contrary, it has never been proven that the Copernican (heliocentric) model is correct and the Ptolemic (geocentric) model wrong?

The fact, undeniable by anyone who believes in relativity, is that there is no way to prove that either model is correct, and that whether the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth around the sun is merely a matter of perspective, with nothing more involved than a shift in coordinates.

Why, again why, is the model where the planets orbit the sun presented as the “correct” view in modern textbooks, when, according to Stephen Hawking and any honest scientist, there IS no “correct” view?

How do you think these honest scientists would react if someone were to insist upon swapping the heliocentric model in the textbooks with the geocentric? Let’s swap the models, and even allow the disclaimer that the model presented is merely one among countless alternatives, all equally correct? (Do most modern textbooks present such a disclaimer alongside the heliocentric model taught in the textbook? I don’t know, but I doubt it).

How do you think people would react if such a demand were made?

“Crackpot!”

But there is nothing at all crackpot about the idea of swapping out the models. If, as scientists MUST admit, and have admitted very quietly, both models are valid, then they should have no problem teaching one model over the other.

Teachers might object on the grounds that teaching the geocentric model would open up a can of worms they don’t want to have to get into. If they’re just trying to teach a basic model of the solar system, they don’t want to have to get into a discussion of relativity to explain why the model being presented is just one of many equally correct models.

But if the above objection is raised, then you would have to raise it regardless of the model being taught. So, then: is the disclaimer that the model used is merely a matter of perspective not being added to the textbooks or lectures? If not, then, in effect, students are being taught that it’s a matter of fact that the heliocentric model is the one true, “correct” reference frame. Which would explain idiotic comments like, “If the Earth didn’t orbit the sun, we would never have been able to go to the Moon.” And yes, I have heard this precise comment numerous times, as if the fact that we went to the Moon disproves the geocentric model.

The only possible reason scientists might not want the geocentric model presented in textbooks, rather than the heliocentric, is that they don’t want people to realize that it is, in fact, just as valid to say that the sun orbits the Earth as that the Earth orbits the sun. They don’t want such a model presented, because it’s a slippery slope that leads to claiming that the geocentric frame is the absolute frame. And God, yes God, forbid, we don’t want the public sliding down that slope, back into the Dark Ages.

And one more note: the textbooks I’ve encountered do teach that the Copernican model won out over the Ptolemaic model. And this is absolutely correct. But just because one model “won out” over another doesn’t mean that one model was proven correct and the other incorrect.

So how about it? Since Hawking, Plait, and all honest scientists acknowledge that the geocentric (with a little g) viewpoint is just as valid as the heliocentric, then in all textbooks, let’s present the geocentric view in all discussions of the solar system. How could any scientist object to such a thing? After all, it’s all just a matter of perspective.

Here's my whole point: most scientists, while relativity requires them to admit that geocentrism (with a little g) is perfectly valid, it actually bothers them to have to make such an admission. I suspect most scientists would cringe at the idea that a child's first exposure to the solar system might be through a geocentric model rather than a heliocentric. I suspect such a thing would be fought tooth and nail.

Pioneer Anomaly solved - Explanation accepted

Yeah, I'll buy this explanation, even though it's not what I was hoping for (new physics):

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-pioneer-anomaly-solved-20120718,0,5836112.story?track=rss

See? Give me reasonable explanations for things, and I'll accept those explanations. Give me pure speculation passed off as fact, like dark matter and dark energy, and relativity, and I will completely reject those explanations.

God particle almost certainly does exist - Ha! More B.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/apnewsbreak-researchers-on-verge-of-discovery-of-new-god-particle-that-explains-universe/2012/07/02/gJQA4YgtHW_story.html

From the article:

"Scientists working at the world’s biggest atom smasher plan to announce Wednesday that they have gathered enough evidence to show that the long-sought “God particle” answering fundamental questions about the universe almost certainly does exist."

"...aren't quite ready to say they've 'discovered' the particle."

"...about as close as you can get to a discovery without actually calling it one."

What? This is about the biggest non-announcement I've ever heard. Sorry, but "almost" doesn't count. That's like going around bragging that you almost had sex with Jennifer Aniston. You either did or you didn't. There's no "almost" about it. If you say you "almost" did something, then you didn't do it. End of story.

This is a non-discovery. They've not discovered anything, yet they're trying to present it as if they have. No dice. I don't want to hear about the Higgs boson again until they can actually say they've discovered it. 

"Sure it's wrong, but we knew it all along."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0619/New-findings-could-rewrite-scientists-model-of-how-universe-hangs-together


     "The reigning theory of particle physics may be flawed, according to new evidence that a subatomic particle decays in a certain way more often than it should, scientists announced."
     The hell you say. Color me all kinds of surprised that the Standard Model may be flawed. And yes, I know the operative words are "may be." 
     "But many physicists suspect the Standard Model has some holes in it..."
     In other words, "We knew it was wrong all along." BS!
     Time to get out the spackle and start filling in those holes, eh, boys? Dark matter, dark energy...what are you going to pull out of your butts this time?
     The thing that really irritates me about stuff like this is, people like me get ridiculed for saying that currently accepted theories are wrong. Mainstream people call us crackpots. They say we don't really understand the theories, because if we did, we would agree with them. You can't challenge the accepted theories, because you can't argue with the evidence.
     But...is it that I and other crackpots don't really understand the theories, or is it quite possible that we do understand them, better than those who adhere to the theories? Maybe we understand them so thoroughly that we see what bunk the theories are. 
     It doesn't matter that I don't understand the math behind the theories and couldn't perform one of the sort required by theory if my life depended on it. I understand the concepts behind the theories, and if the concepts are bullshit, then no matter how correct the math is, the theory is still bullshit. If the theory is wrong, you can doodle all sorts of equations onto a blackboard and insist that your theory is correct, but wrong is wrong, no matter what sort of mathematical acrobatics you perform.
     Mainstream people also say, "Well, you don't have an alternative to the standard theories. At least we've got something." So what? I don't believe in things simply because there is no viable alternative out there. I don't know what the correct theories are, but I know what they aren't. They aren't the Standard Model, and they aren't Relativity, and they aren't quantum mechanics.

When will the madness stop?

More ridiculousness from the scientific community:


http://planetsave.com/2012/06/16/neutrons-might-be-disappearing-into-a-parallel-world/


"Experimental data obtained by the research group of Anatoly Serebrov at the Institut Laue-Langevin, France was reanalyzed by theoretical physicists Zurab Berezhiani and Fabrizio Nesti from the University of l’Aquila, Italy. They found that the loss rate of very slow free neutrons appeared to depend on the direction and strength of the magnetic field applied. This anomaly is unexplainable by known physics."

'This anomaly is unexplainable by known physics." Well, gee, maybe that's because known physics is wrong. If experimental observations don't fit known physics, perhaps it's time to rethink known physics.

But the scientists in the article (in keeping with scientists in general) take a different tack. "Zurab Berezhiani thinks that the anomaly can be explained by the existence of a parallel world consisting of mirror particles."

Why is it that, when confronted with observations that go against theory (i.e. things that are unexplainable by known physics), the instinct of physicists is to pull wacky ideas out of the asses to save their theory? Dark matter, parallel universes, etc. Things for which there is not a shred of observational evidence. 

"Wait a minute," they'll object to my objection. "There is evidence for these 'wacky ideas.'" And then they cite as evidence the very anomalous observations that they're trying to explain away by pulling the wacky ideas out of their asses. It's circular reasoning, and it's completely ridiculous.

Another rant on dark matter

In regard to dark matter, you could say, “Well, astronomers were able to predict the existence of planets in our solar system that had not yet been directly observed, because the unseen planets perturbed the orbits of already-observed planets. It’s the same situation with dark matter. We know its there because it’s perturbing the motion of visible matter in distant space.”

But it’s not the same situation. Where unseen planets are concerned, astronomers weren’t positing the existence of a new form of matter with very unusual properties. They were merely saying, “There should be a planet in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory.” There’s nothing wrong with that type of prediction. But with dark matter, scientists aren’t doing that. They’re saying, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties all around us, because the motion of distant matter isn’t behaving according to theory.”

Now, if the planet-hunting astronomers had said, “There should be a completely new form of matter with very unusual properties in this orbit, because the orbit of this other planet doesn’t quite fit theory,” it would be a different story. THAT would be an absurd, unwarranted leap of logic, and it’s precisely the leap scientists are making when they concoct dark matter to patch the hole in their Big Bang theory. 

The reason scientists aren't resorting to everyday, familiar objects to explain the motion of distant matter is because the discrepancies between observed and predicted motions aren't the only problems faced by cosmologists. Dark matter is being invented to explain other discrepancies as well. Ordinary matter won't fit the bill. 

"It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet..."

More dark matter nonsense:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/05/30/new-science-lab-turns-lead-into-solid-gold/

This is one of those news stories that just drives me crazy.

From the article: “They know it’s [dark matter] there by its gravitational pull but, unlike regular matter and antimatter, it’s so far undetectable.”

No, they don’t know it’s there by its gravitational pull. In actuality, observed matter in distant space is not moving as predicted by the standard theory of cosmology, namely the Big Bang theory. They assume it's there by the discrepancy between theory and observation. In regards to this discrepancy between theory and observation, scientists say, “Our theory is correct, therefore there must be something unseen causing matter to move against theoretical prediction. In other words, we know it's there by it's gravitation pull. Ergo, dark matter.”

But any scientist worthy of the moniker should say rather, “Observed matter in distant space is not moving as predicted by the standard theory. Is the standard theory thereby disproved?”

But no. The modern scientist assumes the correctness of his theory, and, in the face of observations which disprove his theory, attempts to save his theory by positing the existence of something that is, and I quote the article, “…so far undetectable.”

From the article: “‘It has to be there because of its effects through gravity, but it also has to have properties that make it very unusual — otherwise, we would have detected it already,’ Lesko said.”

Reading between the lines: “It has to be there, because our theory doesn’t work without it. It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet because it’s very unusual stuff.”

Absolutely ridiculous! Scientists have faith, pure and simple, that dark matter exists. They have nothing but faith! They have actual observational evidence that their standard model of cosmology is incorrect, yet they won’t let go of their precious theory because they have faith in the existence of something that has thus far eluded detection.

And yet they laugh at belief in God. Go figure.

Logical reasoning: Visible matter isn't moving according to prediction, therefore the theory used to make predictions may be incorrect. Develop new theory.

Illogical reasoning: Visible matter isn't moving according to prediction, therefore something heretofore undetected (dark matter) is affecting the movement of visible matter. Keep theory, build detectors to detect dark matter.

We know it's there, we just have to build detectors to detect it. Our theory is correct; we just have to find the proof that it's correct.

With dark matter, scientists are starting from the assumption that they're correct, and then going in search of proof of their correctness. Since when does science work this way?!

"It’s there, but we just haven’t detected it yet..." (exact quote from the above article). Funny. A Christian can give the exact same response to a scientist's demand for scientifically acceptable proof of God's existence. Do you think the scientist will accept such a response, or do you think the scientist will laugh the Christian out the door? We already know the answer to that question, don't we?

Why are we not laughing dark matter out the door?

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.

B.S.!

Dark matter and dark energy

What does it mean when scientists talk about dark matter and dark energy? It means the Big Bang theory doesn’t fit with observation, and they have to make up stuff (dark energy, dark matter) in order to make the theory fit observation. But dark matter and dark energy are purely hypothetical and ad hoc constructions to save the theory. They’ve never been detected.

“Au contraire, mon frere, dark matter and dark energy have been detected. We know they exist because observation doesn’t fit theory. And observation doesn’t fit theory because dark energy and dark matter are there complicating things.”

The only proof scientists have that their hypothetical dark matter exists is that their theory doesn’t work without it. That’s ridiculous. Bits of visible matter in the distant universe don’t move the way theory says they should, therefore that means dark matter exists. Double ridiculous. Rather than say the theory is disproved by observation, scientists say observation proves the existence of an unseen type of matter and energy. Triple ridiculous.

We know it exists because our theory doesn’t work without it. That’s the proof for dark matter and dark energy.

The demise of an Earth-centered universe

Copernicus

Up until the 16th century A.D., pretty much everyone believed that Earth was at the center of the universe, and that the Sun and the stars and everything else revolved around the Earth. This is known as geocentrism, meaning “Earth-centered.”

Then in the 16th century, a genius named Nicolaus Copernicus had the visionary idea that there was nothing special about the Earth. Earth orbited the sun, just like all the other planets in the solar system. This is known as “heliocentrism,” meaning “Sun-centered.”

Of course, the church didn’t like Copernicus’s idea, and he kept quiet about it.

Galileo

In the 17th century, another genius named Galileo Galilei, an astronomer, made several discoveries that were taken as proof that Copernicus was right. Galileo discovered moons orbiting Jupiter, which proved that not everything orbits the Earth. He also observed the phases of Venus. The phases didn’t work if Venus orbited the Earth.

Galileo dealt these two blows to geocentrism, turning the tide in favor of heliocentrism and sparking the scientific revolution. After Galileo, pretty much everyone believed that Earth was not at the center of the universe. After Galileo, pretty much everyone believed that there was nothing really special about Earth’s place in the universe.

James Clerk Maxwell

A few hundred years later, in the middle of the 19th century, another genius named James Clerk Maxwell formulated an electromagnetic theory which showed that light, electricity and magnetism were all manifestations of the same electromagnetic field. The equations of his theory predicted the constant speed of light.

Albert Michelson and Edward Morley

Shortly after Maxwell, two more geniuses named Albert Michelson and Edward Morley conducted one of the most famous scientific experiments in history: the Michelson-Morley experiment.

At that time, most scientists believed that light waves traveled through a medium that filled all of space, called the luminiferous aether. Much the way sound waves require a medium such as air to propagate, so it was believed that light required a similar medium.

The Michelson-Morley experiment was intended to detect the motion of Earth relative to the luminiferous aether. The reasoning behind the experiment was simple. If, as Maxwell said, light travels at a constant speed through the electromagnetic medium, then if you’re moving relative to the medium, you should be able to detect a change in the speed of light.

The technical details of the experiment aren’t important. What is important is that the experiment failed to detect any motion relative to the luminiferous aether.

This was a great puzzle to the scientists of the time, since, as everyone had known since the time of Galileo, the Earth was moving through space as it orbited the sun. Either they were wrong about the Earth moving through space, or there was something peculiar going on that desperately needed to be explained.

The scientists of the day opted for the latter possibility, since the notion of an immobile Earth was completely ludicrous. These scientists put forth a lot of theories as to why the Earth’s motion couldn’t be detected, but none of these theories was entirely satisfactory to all concerned.

Albert Einstein

At the beginning of the 20th century, yet another genius named Albert Einstein was troubled by an aspect of Maxwell’s electrodynamic theory. In Maxwell’s theory, the electrodynamic forces between a magnet and a conductor are different depending on whether the conductor is in motion or the magnet is in motion.

What this indicated is that there is a preferred frame of reference. Einstein did not like this. He thought that it should make no difference whether the magnet or the conductor was in motion. Only the relative motion should matter.

Einstein overcame the moving magnet and conductor problem by developing his Special Theory of Relativity. Maxwell’s theory seemed to indicate a preferred reference frame, which Einstein didn’t like, so he developed a theory that got rid of Maxwell’s frame-dependence while maintaining Maxwell’s constancy of the speed of light.

At the same time, Einstein’s theory also explained the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment to detect the Earth’s motion relative to the aether. There is no aether, Einstein said. All observers measure the same speed of light no matter how fast they’re going, because time slows down the faster we move.

Summary from an Earth-centered viewpoint

So it’s all neatly explained. The Earth is not at the center of the universe. The Earth orbits the sun, just like an uncountable number of other planets orbit their own suns throughout the universe. Earth just an unremarkable little speck in a vast universe. This has all been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Think again.

Galileo’s discovery of the phases of Venus and the moons orbiting Jupiter does not prove that the Earth orbits the sun and not vice versa. All Galileo proved was that not everything orbits the Earth. He did not prove that the universe does not revolve around the Earth.

All Galileo proved was that the current (16th century) geocentric theory needed to be slightly modified so that Venus orbits the sun. Contrary to popular belief, Galileo did not disprove geocentrism.

In other words, heliocentrism became the dominant theory even though all the evidence available at the time supported either theory, favoring neither.

Two hundred years later, Maxwell offered a mathematical theory that claimed a preferred reference frame, the luminiferous aether. But the evidence was only mathematical. The physical results were the same regardless of whether the conductor or the magnet was in motion.

Decisive evidence in favor of geocentrism didn’t come until two hundred years later, with the Michelson-Morley experiment. This experiment lent unequivocal support in favor of geocentrism over heliocentrism. But to the scientists of the 19th century, heliocentrism, despite having no proof favoring it over its rival theory, was too entrenched. Evidence that favored a motionless Earth was staring them right in the face, but they rejected it out of hand, because the notion of an immobile Earth was too ludicrous to even consider. Without even the barest thought of reconsidering geocentrism, scientists sought an alternate explanation.

It took about twenty years, but Einstein finally came to the rescue.

There is absolutely no proof of relativity

But did Einstein really rescue anything?

Despite claims to the contrary, relativity has never been proven. It has been supported by evidence. But—and this is a crucial but—just because evidence supports a theory does not mean that the theory has been proven. Other explanations for relativity’s supporting evidence have not been ruled out. In other words, the same evidence can support other theories besides relativity. That is why relativity is only a theory and not a physical law.

In fact, the two dominant theories in physics—relativity and quantum mechanics—conflict with each other. That’s why you hear talk of the Holy Grail of science: The Grand Unified Theory. It means scientists know relativity is incomplete, possibly even incorrect, and so they’re looking for the final theory that will eliminate the conflict and allow relativity to be reconciled with quantum mechanics.

Relativity is the dominant scientific theory of its type because it has the support of most of the world’s scientists. It is not the dominant theory because all the evidence precludes any explanation other than relativity.

If relativity has not been proven, then the evidence of the Michelson-Morley experiment is still open to interpretation. If relativity, which was essentially born to explain evidence of an immobile Earth and an absolute frame of reference, is not proven and is possibly incorrect, then the evidence in favor of an immobile Earth and an absolute frame of reference has yet to be refuted.

Other purported disproofs of geocentrism

Complexity

The mechanics of an Earth-centered universe are too complex. The mechanics of a non-Earth-centered universe are much simpler, and therefore geocentrism must be wrong.

This is just ridiculous logic. Scientists don’t accept this sort of logic when religious folk offer the complexity argument as proof of God (life is too complex, therefore there must be a God), so why do they allow it to be used as a disproof of geocentricity (the mechanics of an Earth-centered universe are too complex, therefore the universe must be non-Earth-centered)?

If the entire universe were rotating around the Earth, that means the stars would be moving much faster than light, which is impossible

This claim is based on Einstein’s postulate that nothing can move faster than light. Again, relativity has not been proven, so you can’t appeal to it in this argument. I’m not appealing to it, since I don’t believe in relativity. Don’t appeal to an unproven theory in which I don’t believe in order to argue with me against geocentricity. Geocentricity and relativity are incompatible.

I could argue with you about the correctness or incorrectness of relativity, but this writing is about geocentricity. I don’t want to go off on a lengthy tangent here.

The phases of Venus

Again, the phases of Venus don’t disprove an Earth-centered universe. They simply prove that Venus doesn’t revolve around the Earth, which it did in the standard geocentric model of Galileo’s day. If you allow that Venus is orbiting the sun rather than Earth, then the phases of Venus appear in the geocentric model.

The moons of Jupiter

Like the phases of Venus, the moons of Jupiter don’t disprove an Earth-centered universe. They simply prove that not everything revolves around the Earth.

Foucault’s Pendulum

Hang a pendulum so that’s it’s free to swing in any vertical plane, and the plane of swing appears to rotate relative to the Earth. This has long been taken to prove that the Earth is rotating.

Actually, all it proves is that there is relative rotation between the Earth and the fixed stars. It can either be said that the Earth is rotating beneath the free-swinging pendulum, or that the free-swinging pendulum is stationary with respect to the fixed stars, which are rotating around the Earth.

Foucault’s pendulum, long touted as a disproof of geocentricity, actually supports either an Earth-centered or a non-Earth-centered viewpoint, and so is neither a proof nor a disproof of either theory. If the same evidence supports two mutually exclusive theories, then such evidence is said to be inconclusive. And that’s exactly what Foucault’s pendulum is.

Not everything revolves around the Earth

This doesn’t disprove an Earth-centered universe. Just because parts of our solar system or parts of other solar systems don’t revolve around the Earth doesn’t mean that the universe as a whole doesn’t revolve around the Earth.

Stellar Parallax

If you hold your index finger in front of your nose, close your right and eye look at your finger through your left eye, then close your left eye and look at your finger through your right, your finger will appear to shift positions against the background depending on which eye you look from. This is parallax.

In stellar parallax, if you look at a nearby star and note its position relative to a more distant star, then wait six months until the Earth is at the opposite of its supposed orbit around the sun, then the nearby star will appear to have shifted position relative to the more distant star. This is offered as proof that Earth orbits the sun.

Yet, like everything else offered against an Earth-centered universe, parallax is no disproof of geocentrism at all, since the same stellar parallax also appears in the geocentric model.

See the diagram below.

The Big Bang and geocentrism

Supporters of the Big Bang offer the analogy of an inflating balloon to explain the fact that, no matter in which direction we look, the stars seem to be receding from Earth. While this would seem to support the Earth being at the center of the universe, they say, just picture Earth as a dot on the surface of an inflating balloon. Any dot on the surface of this inflating balloon will see all other dots receding from it. That’s why it looks like we’re at the center, but we’re not really.

I find it interesting that Big Bang supporters insist that their analogy be confined to the surface of the balloon. If you lived on the surface of a balloon, yes, you would see all dots receding from you as if you were at the center of it all.

Unfortunately, we don’t live on two-dimensional surface. We live in a three-dimensional universe. If we refuse to allow our analogy to be confined to the surface of the balloon, then the only other place in which all dots will appear to be receding from your dot is when your dot is at the center of the balloon.

Thus, the astronomical observations of Edwin Hubble, which led to the development of the Big Bang theory, actually support an Earth-centered universe. To make these observations support a non-Earth-centered universe, you must add a philosophical argument, known as the Copernican Principal, which says, basically, that there is nothing special about Earth’s position in the universe.

So, in short, Big Bang observations support an Earth-centered universe with no modification or conditions.

They support a non-Earth-centered universe only if you add a philosophical condition that sort of begs the question. In other words, to get a non-Earth-centered universe out of Big Bang observations, you have to sort of manhandle the observations to get them to say what you want, whereas with an Earth-centered universe, no manhandling of the observations is needed.

The Big Bang and Michelson-Morley

We have two sets of data that unequivocally support an Earth-centered universe:

Michelson-Morley, which shows that Earth is not moving, and the astronomical observations that led to the Big Bang theory, which show that Earth occupies a special place in the universe. We have hard scientific evidence leading to a conclusion that, oddly, is being ignored and indeed scorned by the scientists who collected the evidence.

MESSENGER studies of Mercury - Non-relativistic explanation for precession?

My first thoughts on reading this article:

http://www.tgdaily.com/space-features/62234-the-mystery-of-mercury-s-core

"Indeed, scientists have discovered that Mercury's core - already suspected of occupying a greater fraction of the planet's interior than Earth, Venus, or Mars - is even larger than anticipated."

"Essentially, Mercury's core is different from any other planetary core in the Solar System. For example, Earth has a metallic, liquid outer core sitting above a solid inner core - while Mercury appears to boast a solid silicate crust and mantle overlying a solid, iron sulfide outer core layer, a deeper liquid core layer, and possibly a solid inner core."

Funny how the precession of Mercury is also one of the most-touted proofs of relativity.

But given the above article, could it be that these previously unexpected aspects of Mercury could actually be the cause of the precession, rather than general relativity? Earthquakes can change the spin of planets and effect their orbits. Could it be that something about Mercury, which apparently has a core unlike any other in the solar system, is effecting its orbit?

Could it just be possible that maybe general relativity has absolutely nothing to do with Mercury's precession, and that some other effect is at work, and that this much-touted test of general relativity is really no test at all?

Anyway. What are the implications, if any, for relativity? That is my initial thought upon reading the above news article.

Open-Minded about Geocentrism

In all my posts on geocentricity, I am not saying that I utterly reject the standard view of a non-Earth-centered universe. All I am saying is that I am open to both views. I think the verdict has yet to come in on which is the correct view.

To anyone in the modern world, even to me when I first encountered it, the notion of an Earth-centered universe seems completely ludicrous. But that’s because we’ve been taught that it’s a ludicrous notion. When you really start looking into it, you’ll find that it’s really not so cut-and-dried that the universe is not centered upon the Earth.

All I mean to say is: keep an open mind. Look at the arguments and evidence on both sides with a truly objective view, a view unclouded by preconceived beliefs that the geocentric view is completely insane and anyone who would believe it is a wacko.

I suspect if you ask the vast majority of people in the world how they know that the Earth orbits the sun, they’ll say, “Because everyone says it is, and the scientists tell me it is.”

That’s the equivalent of accepting the “Because I said so” answer. Just because someone says so doesn’t make it true. Look into it on your own. Never accept “Because I said so” as an answer.

How many scientists have actually questioned the most basic assumptions that have been handed down from the days of Galileo and Newton and more recently? How many scientists have actually looked at the foundations of science, rather than just accepting those foundations as given and moving on from there?

Sure, you learn the foundations in textbooks. But no one questions. When you’re a student, the textbooks simply say, “This is how it is.” You learn the textbooks without questioning, and you move on, acquiring further knowledge built upon those unquestioned, unexamined foundations.

I really don’t care whether the universe is centered on the Earth or not. Whether it is or isn’t changes absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things.

However, I don’t have the same view about relativity. I think it would be cool if relativity were true. Time dilation, black holes — I like science fiction, and that’s the stuff of science fiction. But as much as I think relativity would be cool if true, I've looked at the evidence, I've read the books, and I think it’s complete nonsense. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, and I think time will bear me out.

So: I’m on the fence regarding Geocentrism, but I’m completely off the fence regarding relativity. Relativity will not survive in its present form, if it survives at all. I think one day people will look back on Einstein and relativity as the greatest inhibitors of scientific progress in the history of mankind.

And when that happens, all the scientists are going to say, “Well, I suspected he was wrong all along. I had my doubts.” Yeah. Sure you did.

Response to an anti-Geocentric article

I recently ran across an article that raised my hackles, so I'm responding to parts of it here. The bold print marks quoations taken from the website, and the normal print marks my responses.

Article: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/09/14/geocentrism-seriously/

“So geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame. This is the very basis of relativity! One of the guiding principles used by Einstein in formulating it is that there is no One True Frame. If there were, the Universe would behave very, very differently.”

In what way would the universe behave very, very differently? For thousands of years, people thought there was One True Frame, and the universe didn’t behave any differently than it does now, when the majority of people believe there is not One True Frame. In fact, the universe behaves exactly the same in both cases. The difference is that now we think we understand how the universe works better than we did when man believed in One True Frame.

So exactly in what way would the universe behave very, very differently? Can you give any specifics? Perhaps you’ll say that time wouldn’t dilate in a universe with One True Frame. Perhaps you’ll say that all observers wouldn’t measure the same speed of light regardless of their state of motion. Stuff like that? Sorry, but those things were “invented” to explain away the results of interferometer experiments that seem to give results consistent with the existence of One True Frame in which the Earth is motionless.

No matter how hard you try, you can’t get away from the fact that relativity was conceived to get away from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments, and the implications of Maxwell’s equations, which seemed to be saying that there was an absolute reference frame and that Earth was at rest with respect to it.

“The other flavor of Geocentrist, those who deny relativity wholesale, are wrong as well. Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time. It is literally tested millions of times a day in particle accelerators. We see it in every cosmological observation, every star that explodes in the sky, every time a nuclear power plant generates even an iota of energy. Heck, without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work.”

Actually, my GPS would work without relativity. Are you saying that if Einstein hadn’t come up with relativity, but someone had still developed the GPS technology, it wouldn’t work because we had no knowledge of relativity? That’s absurd. That’s like saying that a waterwheel wouldn’t work without an understanding of hydrodynamics, or that electricity wouldn’t work without an understanding of atomic theory, or electromagnetic theory. It’s stupidity to say that technology won’t work unless we have a theory to explain the workings of a particular aspect of nature. Technology and nature in general works regardless of whether we correctly understand how they work. Theories are attempts to explain the workings of nature. Nature doesn’t care whether or not we have a theory to explain it.

Perhaps when you say “without relativity your GPS wouldn’t work,” what you mean is that GPS was developed because we had a theory of relativity. In other words, relativity directly led to the invention of GPS, an invention that wouldn’t have happened without Einstein’s theory. But the development of a technology is not a proof of the correctness of the theory that led to the development of the technology. If such were the case, you could validly say that the development of the sun dial is proof of the correctness of the geocentric view, since, as far as I know, the sun dial was invented while geocentricity held sway.

Most likely, you're referring to the fact that for GPS to work, relativistic effects must be taken into account. I quote from the "your GPS wouldn't work" link: 

"However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy" 

"The satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on Earth." So all that we can conclude from the GPS satellites is that when things are in motion relative to Earth, relativistic effects must be taken into account. The GPS system therefore does not disprove Geocentricity.  

Geocentrists claim that the Earth is stationary and provides an absolute rest frame. The GPS system seems to say that motion relative to the Earth must be taken into account. Nothing about the GPS system contradicts the Geocentric view.

“Relativity is so solid, in fact, that anyone who denies it outright at this point can be charitably called a kook^†.

So — you guessed it — either way, Geocentrism is wrong.”

Again, I give a previous quote: “So geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame.” Basically what you’re saying is that relativity allows geocentrism and geocentrism is a completely correct viewpoint in every respect except the part where it claims to be the One True Frame. Because you certainly can’t be saying that relativity proves the geocentric frame itself is incorrect. If that’s what you mean by “geocentrism is wrong,” then you’re saying that it’s possible to choose one reference frame over another, to determine that one reference frame is invalid—which, according to relativity, is impossible. Therefore, you certainly must be saying that the only thing incorrect about Geocentrism is its claim to be the One True Frame.

That being the case, the only proof you can offer against Geocentricity is a philosophical preference— you don’t want there to be an absolute frame, because that smacks of God. If you believe in relativity, you have to accept the geocentric frame, else you invalidate relativity. You yourself said it: “So geocentrism is valid, but so is every other frame.” Why then do you also say: “So — you guessed it — either way, Geocentrism is wrong.” Your statements make no sense. “Geocentrism is valid, but it’s wrong.” WTF? You have absolutely no way of disproving geocentricity other than an appeal to a preference for simplicity or a preference for the absence of God.

So: why do you bitch and moan when someone doesn’t buy into your appeals for simplicity and godlessness?

“Those are really the strongest arguments against Geocentrism. You either have to misuse relativity, or deny it entirely, and either way you lose, GOOD DAY SIR!”

Really? Those are the strongest arguments against Geocentrism? Such pathetic arguments.

I agree that relativity shouldn’t be used in attempts to support Geocentrism. If one accepts Geocentrism, then Einstein’s relativity is unnecessary. Einsteinian relativity was invented to get away from Geocentrism, for which experimental evidence was mounting. If there is evidence to support relativity, then the Geocentrist must explain away such evidence without resorting to relativity in its present form.

In the article, the so-called arguments against Geocentrism don’t actually begin until the following lines:

“I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.

Surprise! Of course, the details are important.”

So. You open by conceding that geocentrism is valid. And clearly, you must accept it as valid if you hold true to relativity. Further, the only way geocentrism can “misuse relativity,” as you put it, is to say that geocentrism is the One True Frame (turning the little-g into a Capital-G). Unless you misuse relativity, you must admit this.

Therefore, your only valid quarrel with Geocentrism is that it claims to be the One True Frame. You explicitly state this when you say:

“That’s where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there; I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.”

So by your own admission, the only “misuse of relativity” of which a geocentrist is guilty is claiming that there is One True Frame.

Wow. You make Capital-G Geocentrism sound like such a high crime, the mark of a true kook and a scoundrel. But really. Honestly, now. What a ridiculous little point of disagreement. You emphatically agree that a geocentric frame is completely valid, absolutely nothing wrong with it—until the claim of the One True Frame is made. Then you’re all, “This is outrageous! These people are kooks and whackos! The unmitigated gall, that they would so misuse relativity! Hang them! Off with their balls!”

But when you get right down to it, all you can offer against Geocentrism is an appeal to simplicity and godlessness, and a baseless philosophical insistence that we absolutely can not, under any circumstances, accept that the Earth might be at the center of the universe (otherwise known as the Copernican Principle).
Who is the real kook and the whacko here, Mr. Plait?

“We also know earthquakes can affect the rotation of the Earth. That makes sense since they shift the mass around on the surface, and that changes how the Earth spins. To a Geocentrist, though, that earthquake affects the entire Universe. 

That’s simpler?”

Again with the insistence upon simplicity. If we’ve got two alternatives, we automatically have to choose the simpler one? Occam’s Razor is not a natural law that governs the universe. It holds no more sway over the way the universe must behave than does Murphy’s Law. You can’t appeal to simplicity as a proof of anything. Only a simple mind would make a statement like, “Theory A is simpler than theory B, therefore theory A is correct.” That’s absurd.

“The other flavor of Geocentrist, those who deny relativity wholesale, are wrong as well. Relativity is one of the most well-tested and thoroughly solid ideas in all of science for all time.”

B.S. You never know what the future holds. Making a statement like that is equivalent to saying, “This is the best movie of all time.”

Relativity is also one of the mot well-contested theories of all time. There are a lot of well-known, lesser known, highly-intelligent people who have disputed relativity, Nikola Tesla and Herbert Dingle, to name a few.

"I understand that to them, these beliefs are deep-seated and as true to them as, say, gravity is to me. But the Universe doesn’t care how strongly you believe in something. If it ain’t right, it ain’t right."

Yes, and the Universe also doesn't care how many people believe in something. If it ain't right, it ain't right. And relativity ain't right.


Here are some of the ridiculous reader comments posted to the above Discover Magazine article:

“That does, however, raise an interesting question about neo-Geocentrism. Anyone feel like doing the math to translate the Three Laws into geocentric coordinates? Can it even be done without eccentric elements?”

Why does it matter whether or not it can be done without eccentric elements? I’m assuming the poster of this comment is of the opinion that given two reference frames, the one that requires simpler calculations must be the “better” or more correct frame. Requiring simplicity is nothing more than a philosophic preference. There is absolutely no reason why nature has to be simple, or “elegant,” just because man demands that it that it be so.

I further don’t like the condescending tone of this post, as if, you know, anyone feel like doing the math, just for a lark? After all, we all know how ridiculous the very notion of geocentrism is, so there’s no use bothering to do the math, unless it’s just for a bit of amusement.

The same poster ends by asking: “Do they believe in a sphere of fixed stars? If so, how do they account for varying stellar parallax?”

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask them? As if you’re too superior to stoop to addressing yourself to a geocentrist directly. Those people are kooks and whackos, after all. “Do they believe in a sphere of fixed stars?” As if they are some sort of cockroach crawling across a nobleman’s dinner table.
            “Oh dear, what is it doing?” asked the nobleman.
            “It appears to be heading toward your soup bowl, my dear chap!” said the nobleman’s dinner guest.

If you want to know what Geocentrists believe, read their books. I dare you.

Another poster asks, “Or parallax for that matter…” in response to the immediately preceding post, which asks, “Anybody here know how Geocentrists explain stellar aberration?”

A second question asking about parallax. What ignorant questions, from people who are supposedly brilliant, scientifically well-versed people! In regards to parallax: do you really suppose that a Geocentrist can’t explain stellar parallax? Do you honestly think that the geometric relationship between bodies changes or breaks down when switching to an Earth-centered frame or switching from any one reference frame to another?

Parallax is easily explained. It’s so simple that I’m not even going to bother explaining it here. Do a little digging and I’m sure you’ll find the explanation. And if you’re such an incredibly smart person that you understand relativity and astronomy and mathematics and such, and you wholeheartedly believe in all of it, then I’m sure you could even figure out how a Geocentrist explains parallax all own your own. And if you can’t, and if you think a Geocentrist can’t explain parallax, then you’d better rethink your belief that you’re intelligent enough to tackle scientific concepts.

Katharine says: “Because they infect other people with their stupidity.
Creobots have ridiculous beliefs. They’re not a teensy minority.
Conservative religionists have ridiculous beliefs. They’re not a teensy minority.
They are ignorant. And goodness knows we do our best to educate them. But they resist it, sometimes militantly, and for terrible reasons (there are no good reasons, either). You think we don’t look cuddly? Look at them.

As long as there is a population of people – we who know science – speaking loudly and forcefully, rationality will not die, and civilization will not be a memory.”

Katharine, if you were here right now, I would bitch slap you.

You have the unbelievably arrogant belief that anyone who doesn’t share your worldview must obviously be ignorant and utterly stupid. The attitude you’ve expressed in your post is just a short hop away from fascism. Let’s control what the people think so they don’t infect us with stupidity.

The ridiculous, ironic thing is that I’m sure you consider yourself a very tolerant and open-minded person.

Another genius says: “I hope those geocentrists don’t try to ban pendulums.”

Why? Because you think Focault’s Pendulum proves that the Earth is rotating and hence disproves geocentricity, and therefore “those geocentrists” would want to suppress the evidence against them?

All that Focault’s Pendulum proves is that there is relative motion between the Earth and the stars and that a freely swinging pendulum remains aligned with the stars. I will say it again: all Focault’s pendulum proves is that there is relative motion between the Earth and the stars. Such “proof” supports both geocentricity and heliocentricity, and thus neither can appeal to pendulums as unequivocal proof for their viewpoint. Sorry. No point for you.

“Otherwise, you need special pleading to explain why the Earth should be the one fixed reference point for everything else.”

Special pleading? There’s no special pleading involved. If you take the universe as a whole, obviously there would be a center of mass, where the gravitational pull is equal on all sides, canceling out. The Earth, the Geocentrist would say, occupies this “universal barycenter.”

Anyway, what exactly is meant by “special pleading”? Do you mean an “ad hoc” explanation? If you do, there is nothing “ad hoc” about the concept of a barycenter. If that is what you mean, then perhaps by “special pleading,” you refer to the explanation of why the Earth would occupy the barycenter. In which case, “special pleading” means an appeal to God to explain Earth’s position. Which is precisely why most scientists are so vehemently opposed to capital-G Geocentrism.

But one doesn’t need to appeal to God, any more than one needs to appeal to God to explain man’s presence in the so-called “Goldilocks Zone” of our solar system. Isn’t it funny that in biology, neither side (evolution versus creation) disputes that man exists in a “Goldilocks Zone.” Yet in physics, scientists fight tooth and nail the idea that Earth might be at rest in the barycenter of the universe, which could be considered the physics equivalent of the Goldilocks Zone.

Neutrinos in the news

Neutrinos have been in the news a lot the last few days, following evidence that they don’t travel faster than light.

What bothers me about all these news stories is that a great deal of them claim that Einstein’s postulate that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light has been proven “right” by this neutrino experiment.

Here are a few sample headlines:

Einstein proved right in retest of neutrinos' speed

Einstein can rest easy as neutrinos obey speed limit

Retest of neutrino speed suggests Einstein was right, after all (+video)

New neutrino test suggests Einstein was right as rain

Einstein vindicated as neutrinos obey speed limit

The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and it runs thus: neutrinos have been shown not to travel faster than light, therefore nothing can travel faster than light, and Einstein has been proven correct.

All this neutrino experiment showed was that neutrinos don’t travel faster than light. End of story. Why do scientists and the headline writers of the world continue the story to say that, since neutrinos don’t travel faster than light, nothing does, and Einstein has been proven correct?

First of all, it’s a logical fallacy to make the leap that since neutrinos don’t travel faster than light, nothing can. Such broad generalizations usually don’t hold true in the real world, and they certainly don’t have any place in science. Second, the experimental results don’t “prove” relativity. The results are merely experimental support. Relativity has never been “proven.” It has only been supported by evidence.

Einstein has not been vindicated; he has not been proven right. Neutrinos don't travel faster than light. End of story.