I was just
browsing some forums where Geocentrism vs. heliocentrism was being debated, and
ran across some interesting comments.
One involved a
guy saying that the need to invent “fictitious” forces to explain things in a
geocentric universe, forces that only existed on a geocentric Earth, was proof
that an absolute Geocentric frame did not exist. The guy in question didn’t
specify exactly which “fictitious” forces he was referring to, but I suspect he
may have meant Coriolis and centrifugal forces. Never mind that those forces
exist in a rotating reference frame, which the Earth is not (rotating, that is)
in a Geocentric universe. Although, of course, in some Geocentric models the
Earth is rotating, but not moving
through space.
So, thought I.
This guy thinks that, when he uses a physics developed for a non-Earth-centered
universe over the last few hundred years, it is significant that he has to
modify that physics to accommodate an Earth-centered universe, and that the
need to make such modifications somehow proves that we don’t live in an
Earth-centered universe.
That’s
ridiculous. Don’t say that shortcomings in your own model are actually shortcomings
in the other guy’s model.
I should rather
think it would be strange if Earth occupied a special place in the universe and
there were NO forces unique to it.
Having to
modify non-Earth-centered physics to explain an Earth-centered universe could
just as easily be taken as proof that we don’t live in a non-Earth centered
universe. In such a case, the so-called “fictitious” forces are not really
fictitious at all. Maybe they’re real, and the rest of your physics is
“fictitious,” or at the very least, inadequate.
I also found it
interesting that a great many of the comments are extremely vicious and nasty.
Apparently, a person who believes the Earth is at the center of the universe is
right down there with murderers and pedophiles in terms of the public’s
contempt. There’s some sort of deep-seated and irrational hostility that is
stirred up by the mere mention of Geocentrism. “Geocentrists are stupid;
they’re liars, cheats and whores who will say anything to twist your words;
they’re best avoided, because you can’t have any sort of logical, intelligent,
peaceful or honest debate with them; they’re scum, because everyone knows that
the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe, it’s so well-known and proven
that we don’t even need to discuss it. Besides, if you really are stupid enough
to think the Earth is at the center of the universe, then your puny mind
couldn’t possibly understand my rebuttal, so I won’t even bother. So just shut
your mouth, damn you! Just shut up! Freaking religious wacko! Crawl off and die
somewhere, why don’t you? Scumbag! Tea Party butthole. You probably voted for
Bush, you right-wing neo-con! Geocentrism! Bah! I spit on your grave! Get out
of this forum, and take your intolerance and idiocy with you! You hateful
bigot!”
Geez. All that
merely because someone coughs and says, “Geocentrism.”
But to be fair,
I think they were forums where a lot of atheists hang out. So, well…you know.
Seriously,
though. That’s the level of debate on a lot of the forums. A Geocentrist tries
to explain his position, and instead of an intelligent rebuttal, he’s met with,
“You’re stupid! You’re so freaking stupid! The Earth can’t possibly be at the
center of the universe. Everyone knows that, so I won’t even discuss it. But
you’re wrong! You’re stupid! Geostationary satellite! ‘Nuff said! Now if you’ll
excuse me, I’m giving a lecture to my physics class in ten minutes. Retard.”
And no, I
didn’t make any comments on the forums. I merely lurked and read what has gone
before.
But mainstream
science has been developing a non-Earth-centered model of the universe for a
good five hundred years. Over the course of that development, there have been a
great many things that are unexplainable based on the state of the mainstream
model at that time. But despite this, the standard model was retained, and development
continued until the model COULD explain the previously unexplainable.
So if you point
out anything at all that can be explained in terms of a non-Earth-centered
model, but cannot currently be explained in terms of an Earth-centered model,
don’t conclude that that therefore means the Earth-centered model absolutely
does not and will never work. There are huge problems and gaps in your own
standard model, but do you take this as evidence that your model is wrong? Of
course not. You make up things like dark matter and dark energy to spackle over
your gaps, having faith that dark matter and dark energy will eventually be
discovered.
It’s
wholeheartedly stupid and disingenuous to assert that, in light of the history
of the development of the non-Earth-centered model, a bit of polishing and
development of the Earth-centered model could not eventually explain the very
things which you point out are currently unexplainable other than with a
non-Earth-centered model.
Why is it that
when a gap in standard physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an opportunity for
further refinement of the theory, a positive thing, but when a similar gap in
geocentric physics is exposed, it’s viewed as an impassable brick wall for Geocentrism,
a show-stopper, the end of the line?
For example,
from what I’m reading, opponents of an Earth-centered universe believe that
geostationary and geosynchronous satellites are the most damning piece of
evidence against Geocentrism. Geocentrism can’t currently explain those things,
therefore geocentrism will never be able to explain those things, and Geocentrism
is therefore disproved.
But shouldn’t
you rather be saying that a non-Earth-centered physics cannot explain those
things in terms of an-Earth-centered model?
And anyway,
there are already at least a few explanations that I’ve run across to explain
geosynchronous satellites in terms of Geocentrism. So the assertion that Geocentrism
cannot explain them is demonstrably false.
The weakness of
standard non-Earth-centered physics in explaining observations in terms of an
Earth-centered model is a strike against standard non-Earth-centered physics,
not against the tenability of an absolute Earth-centered model.
The fact is
that human ingenuity can come up with tenable and consistent theories to
explain any observation. That’s what makes us so great. We can come up with multiple
theories to explain the same observation, all of them tenable, or with the
potential to be made tenable with enough development. It’s all a matter of
which theory you want to invest your time and your life in.
And maybe
that’s what mainstream, dogmatic scientists don’t like. They aren’t comfortable
with the notion that there could be other theories waiting in the wings, equal
to their own, thereby rendering their life’s investment worthless. And
Geocentrism is the most diametrically-opposing theory out there, for the
standard model of cosmology. So of course it gets a guttural,
trapped-in-a-corner kind of primal reaction from proponents of the standard
model. The Copernican principal is fundamental to standard cosmology, so of
course people who fundamentally reject the Copernican principal are going to be
the object of an instinctive hatred for proponents of the standard model.
The truth is
that IF you care to look deeper into the issue than flinging ad hominem attacks
against Geocentrists, AND you can get past your a priori assumption that the
Earth cannot possibly be at the center of everything, then you will find that
Geocentrists are on a much firmer foundation than you think they are.
