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.