Response to "A Geocentrist vs. Relativity" by Martymer81

Response to Youtube video “A Geocentrist vs. Relativity” by Martymer81

1:22 Have you actually read the original Michelson-Morley paper? I would say no, because your 5-point outline is a complete misrepresentation of it.
According to your bullet points, the hypothesis of Michelson-Morley is (1) “Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether).” The alleged consequence of this hypothesis (2) is that “The Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity.”
(2) is actually NOT a consequence of (1). It is an assumption independent of (1), and was explicitly labeled as an assumption in Michelson’s 1881 paper, and implicitly labeled as such in Michelson-Morley’s 1887 paper. Both your prediction (3) and your conclusion (5) are dependent upon the truth of that assumption. Anyway, (1) was NOT the hypothesis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The title of the 1887 paper was “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminferous Ether,” which gives a pretty good idea of exactly what the experiment WAS about. Is the paper titled, “On the Question of the Ether’s Existence” or “On the Question of Whether Light is a Wave in a Medium”? No. The actual hypothesis of the 1887 experiment was one of Fresnel’s, that “the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media.” It had to do with the question of whether the ether is entrained in objects moving through it, NOT with whether the ether actually existed. The existence of the ether was another assumption of the experiment. It’s even clearer in Michelson’s 1881 experiment: “The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.” The conclusion of the 1887 paper: “It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration.” Part of Fresnel’s explanation being that the ether is stationary except in the interior of transparent media. Where exactly in the paper does it state that the conclusion of the experiment is that there is no ether? It isn’t even implied. Einstein, decades later, was the one who said there was no ether. The point: your 5-point outline of MM is riddled with errors and a conclusion based upon a biased misstatement of the true experimental hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the experiment inferred from your 5-point outline of it:
Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether). Therefore the Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity. The experiment failed to detect Earth’s motion through the aether. Therefore the aether does not exist.
Completely illogical. Neither of the “therefores” follows from the assertion in their respective preceding sentences. A more accurate summary of the experiment, NOT a summary of the experiment as re-interpreted in hindsight by relativists to support their theory (which is what your 5-point summary is), is:
The aether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media (according to Fresnel’s theory). Assuming the Earth moves against the aether at at least 30 km/s, the experiment will detect such motion. The experiment failed to detect such motion. Therefore, Fresnel's explanation of aberration (stationary ether -- NOTE: NOT NO ether) is entirely refuted.
You have misrepresented/misstated/mischaracterized the entire experiment to fit your biased interpretation of the results. Use it as evidence in favor of relativity if you’d like, but at least give an honest summary of the experiment. Is your position so weak that it can’t withstand an honest summary? 1:36 “And you do realize that the experiment has been repeated with more sensitive equipment, right?”

So they just have more accurate data that there is no relative motion between the Earth and the ether. Or that Fresnel’s hypothesis of a STATIONARY ether is incorrect. So what? Repetition of the same experiment with more sensitive equipment does not change the hypothesis of the original experiment or its conclusion. An increase in the accuracy does not change the fact that the experiment is only designed to detect the relative motion of the Earth and the ether, NOT to detect whether the ether actually exists. You DO realize this, right? As I said to some other commenter, the failure of a car’s speedometer to detect relative motion between the car and the road is not evidence that there is no road. It is evidence that there is no relative motion. Anything more is your own explanation of WHY there is no relative motion.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. MomoTheBellyDancer, Part 1

My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism

Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):

“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”

We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun. 

As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is revolving around the sun.

As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.

“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with the model with the least amount of assumptions.”

Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.

Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.

MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:

"Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."

Then explain how we could get stellar aberration that way.

"choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."

Then present a model in which the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with as few assumptions as possible.

"Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe."

 Irrelevant. It states that we should choose the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same facts just as well, if not better?

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. Nope, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic

Scott Reeves wrote (in a general comment directed at CoolHardLogic)::

Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and many other reputable scientists, say geocentrism works, but we're supposed to believe you that it doesn't?

Nope wrote:

No, you're supposed to believe the evidence gathered through observations, which clearly points out that geocentrism is bollocks. Also, I'm pretty sure none of those fellas actually believed for a second that geocentrism is an even remotely plausible explanation, but who knows? Even Newton said hillariously stupid shit back then so yeah.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Here is the ColdHardTruth that all you relativity supporters are going to have to accept if you want to be relativists: there is absolutely not a single shred of evidence you can put forward to disprove the geocentric reference frame. The geocentric reference frame is a perfectly valid reference frame in relativity.

The only thing you can do is try to talk me and other Geocentrists out of advocating an absolute Geocentric reference frame. How do you do this? You point out that relativity forbids an absolute reference frame, and then try to convince us that relativity has a hundred years of empirical evidence behind it. You tell us that it is the most well-tested theory in the history of science, and only a fool would reject an argument with that magnitude of empirical weight behind it. And if those tactics don’t work, you begin to pile on the mockery and the public humiliation in attempt to silence us.

That is ALL you can do. You all keep trying to prove that the Earth is in motion and the geocentric reference frame is invalid. News flash: that is most definitely not going to happen. If you think it will, you do not understand relativity. Trying to disprove the geocentric reference frame by saying that the Earth is definitely in motion is just the opposite of what I do by advocating the absolute Geocentric frame: you are trying to prove a frame of absolute motion. So by denying geocentrism in any form you’re also working hard to try to disprove relativity.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. EmperorZelos, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “Heliocentric Vs ConcaveGeocentric Model Of Our Universe” by Godrules

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by Mike Vizioz:

"There is absolutely no reason to believe in something like that unless you are out to prove the validity of the bible."

How about a desire to be scientifically accurate? The choice is either absolute Geocentrism or relativity. Since relativity requires the existence of an unscientific concept, namely the unobservable universe, to be valid, relativity is not a scientific theory, yet is presented as scientific fact. Therefore the choice is either absolute Geocentrism or pseudoscience.

From a religious and Biblical perspective (yes, I am a Christian) I couldn't care less whether we're at the center of the universe or not. Makes no difference to my belief in God. I only want to follow the scientifically sound view of the universe, and protest all you want, that view is Geocentrism.

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by EmperorZelos:

Prove it. Have you gone to other points in the universe to check your assertion?

EmperorZelos wrote:

EVERY point of the universe will be seen as the center you idiot and big bang/ relativity does nto depend upon a larger universe. Go back to highschool

Scott Reeves wrote:

Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle. 

And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe. If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are, then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school.

Emperor Zelos wrote:

"Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle."

It's demonstrable by the laws of physics, they are frame independed which means all points are equal.

"And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe"

It doesn't, it might be a conclusion but it's not a dependence.

"If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are"

It doesn't, cite a single peer reviewed article from a reputable journal that says we are the center.

"then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school."

That's a non-sequitor.

The ceocentric model is dead and easily done so by simple newtonian physics because the earth moves around the sun, which moves around the center of the galaxy. We've measured these speeds and much else.

Geocentrism: The Debates Introduction

I'm going to start posting discussions I have had over the past month in the comments sections of various Youtube videos. Of course they're all on the subject of geocentrism and relativity. The illustrious CoolHardLogic even puts in a lengthy appearance.

In a lot of the cases, the other debate participant eventually dropped out, whether it was due to my craziness, their lack of time, or their growing tired of carrying the discussion onward. Or maybe they will eventually get around to responding to dangling response to their previous comments, and just haven't yet. For whatever reason, a lot of the discussions are left hanging, so I'm calling each one "part 1," even though there may never be a subsequent part.

I in no way mean to imply anything at all about the other participant's leaving the discussion; I know life gets in the way, or the debate eventually becomes pointless, or they think things have gotten a little too crazy, or they're in over their heads, or they think I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever reason, nothing against the other commentor, and their leaving the debate shouldn't be construed as an admission of defeat on their part (although predictably and, being human, I do of course consider myself the hands-down winner of every exchange). I appreciate each participant having taken the time to respond to what they did. It has helped to me hone my own arguments.

It should also be noted that I have absolutely no idea who any of my opponents are in "real life." I don't know their educational background - nothing. So I didn't choose to respond to a comment they made because I researched them and found them to be knowledgeable; I merely wanted to respond to something they had said to some other commentor, and so our discussion began.

In each case, I'm going to identify myself and my opponent using "Scott Reeves wrote:" and "[insert name] wrote:" with each participant's section having the words of the opposing participant quoted in bold. 

Also, the presence of my comments in a particular video's comments section shouldn't be construed as either agreement or disagreement with the content of that video. Also, any spelling or grammatical errors have been left in and are the "fault" of whoever made them, including myself.

Also, a lot of these debates are quite long, so be sure to click the "read more" link at the bottom to read the whole thing.

Any copyrighted material is used under Fair Use.

Geocentric vs. relativistic time dilation

Here is a quote from Wikipedia.com: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Just as accurately, the above quote could read: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of light's unique speed relative the absolute Geocentric reference frame. 

That's right. Time dilation does not belong to relativity. I've posted a new YouTube video which explains how there are absolutely no Einsteinian concepts involved in time dilation. It is merely an a-relativistic theory which Einstein adopts for his own theory by declaring time dilation to be symmetric, or relative.

Time dilation can be derived exactly according to the same equations and diagrams used by relativists everywhere. 

GPS corrections, particle accelerators, cosmic ray muons - all easily predicted from within an absolute Geocentric reference frame by the exact same method Einstein uses, with no sleight of hand and no mathematical corrections. 

What does relativity's geocentric model look like?

I was asked a question on a YouTube forum about what the absolute Geocentric model of the universe looks like. I decided to turn the question around. Everyone seems quick and eager (CoolHardLogic, anyone?) to claim victory in debunking the geocentric reference frame. But hold on a second - relativity contains a geocentric reference frame. So if all the geocentric models put forth by absolute geocentrists can be debunked, then what exactly do the relativists think their own geocentric model is? Since they've got a geocentric reference frame, they MUST have their own geocentric model of the universe. So what does it look like? I explain EXACTLY what it looks like in the following two videos. And (spoilers ahead)surprise, surprise, it looks exactly like the most current geocentric models that the relativists have allegedly debunked. Brings to mind an image of Barney Fife shooting himself in the foot as he attempts to draw his pistol.

These are The Undeniable Facts:

1)   A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity.
2)   We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this.
3)   Absolute Geocentrists say that our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe is all that there is to the universe. There is nothing beyond our observable universe.
4)   If our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe.
5)   According to standard Big Bang theory, anything beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe will be forever unobservable to us due to the expansion of space.
6)   Things that are unobservable do not exist as far as science is concerned. Therefore anything beyond our observable universe does not exist as far as science is concerned. How could it, since the ability to observe something is a requirement of the scientific method?
7)   If 4) is correct then relativity is false, because Earth is a preferred, special reference frame, defining an absolute rest frame.
8)   The only way 4) can be false is if there is a larger universe beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe.
9)   Therefore, both relativity and the Copernican principle require the existence of a universe beyond our observable universe, i.e. both require something that is beyond the scope of the scientific method and rational scientific inquiry.
10)  Mainstream science claims that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe. They MUST claim this, because both relativity and the Copernican principle require it (see 9)) Google “the observable universe vs. the entire universe.”
11)  Relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact.
12)  Therefore, relativity is pseudo-science.
13)  The only options available to us are absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism.
14)  Relativity is a pseudo-science, therefore the only option available to strict adherents to science is absolute Geocentrism.

Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the universe as far as science is concerned. Relativists are the kooks, not the Geocentrists. Case closed, class dismissed.

Stephen Hawking, relativists and anti-geocentrists get taken to school

A little graphic I made today. If you right-click on the image and select "save image as," you can download this to your computer for easier zooming. The kid is me, of course, forty-some years ago.

Video Transcription: Part 1 of Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

This is the first part of the transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw. It's a LONG video, and hence is going to be a long transcription, so I'm posting it in parts as I work on it. This first part covers about the first 1/3 of the video. 

Video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/U7oP1OfJ4_I

Video on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinTheCenterOfTheObservableUniverseFlaw

Again, this is unedited. Also, there's a lot going on in the video that doesn't translate to text, so some of the transcription might not make sense without the video, but I'm doing it anyway.

Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

I did a Google here on “the observable universe.” The first result is Wikipedia: “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time.”

How big is the observable universe? 46.5 billion light years. How far is the edge? Something wrong with these figures here.

Anyway, there’s the observable universe. How big is the universe? The diameter of the observable universe is a sphere around 92 billion light years. Has a radius of 46 billion light years.

The observable universe is basically everything we can see. Let me pull up Wikipedia here just to have something to read.

 “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects have had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of expansion.”

So look, this diagram here is a bunch of stars enclosed in a sphere.

New YouTube videos - Relativity's Pseudoscience Flaw, and the End of Greatness

I've posted two new YouTube videos. One explains why relativity is pseudoscience. The other is on Geocentrism, the so-called End of Greatness that lies 300 million light years from Earth, and the astronomical observations of an extinct alien civilization billions of light years from Earth.

 

 

Einstein Himself Responds to Me

Going back to an earlier post in which I said that the proper way to resolve the Twins Paradox is to follow it into general relativity where it belongs, which leads to the foolish nonsense of saying that the pressing of the brakes on Einstein’s train generates a gravitational field that causes the entire universe to lurch to a halt — today I’ve been heartened to discover that Einstein himself has already responded to my objections, in a short paper titled Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity. I came up with the ideas in my earlier post all on my own, and it pleases me to find that I’m treading in the footsteps of great minds.

And what do Einstein and his sock-puppet critic have to say about my criticism? (I say this facetiously. I actually do have great respect for Einstein. You can’t argue with the greatness of the theory he came up with, and that it took a brilliant mind to do it. I can acknowledge that, even as I acknowledge that the theory is complete bunk).

He agrees with me that the Twins Paradox can be resolved in terms of general relativity. And it’s basically resolved exactly how I said: the gravity field generated by the pressing of the train brakes, or the turning of the rocket’s steering wheel, affects the clocks of both frames, thereby resolving the supposed paradox.

Einstein’s hypothetical critic then asks what I basically asked: isn’t this gravity field merely fictitious?

To which Einstein responds: “..the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful.” He says that it’s a real gravitational field as far as the observer in question is concerned, so let’s not quibble over unimportant things like real or unreal, gravity or pseudo-gravity.

And my answer to that? What a lame answer, Einstein! Bollocks! I call bull**** on this! I demand that we quibble over such terms!

He also talks about “just how little merit there is in calling upon the so-called ‘common sense…’”

So: Einstein’s considered response is basically that where relativity is concerned, we shouldn’t worry about concepts like real or unreal, and we shouldn’t appeal to common sense.

He further says that the main difficulty most people have when studying relativity is that “…the connection between the quantities that occur in the equations and the measurable quantities is much more indirect than in terms of the usual theories.” Read: relativity is mainly a theory of mathematical abstractions that has little obvious bearing on actual physical reality. Just as I’ve been saying all along.

In this paper Einstein also has some interesting things to say about the universe revolving around the Earth: “For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves…Nobody will use a coordinate system that is at rest relative to the planet Earth, because that would be impractical. However as a matter of principle such a theory of relativity is equally valid as any other…For the decision which representation to choose only reasons of efficiency are decisive, not arguments of a principle kind.”

In other words, if I choose to say that the Earth is in an absolute frame at the center of the universe, there is little the relativist can muster in the way of scientific principle or empirical evidence to refute me. The best relativity can do is to say, “Hey! Relativity demands that all reference frames are equal, so you can’t say there’s an absolute frame.” Yeah, well, since I don’t subscribe to relativity, then I’ll say it, and you can’t disprove me. It reminds me of an old Robin Williams joke about cops in England who don’t carry guns, so they can only shout, “Stop! Or I’ll say stop again!” The relativists, in effect, have no gun with which to force Geocentrists to cease and desist.

In reality, rather than the idiot being the one who proclaims that the Earth is at the center of the universe, the idiot is actually the one who proclaims that no way, no how can the Earth be at the center of the universe.

“But come on,” the relativist objects. “You can’t possibly believe that the Earth is really at the center of the universe, can you?”

What? So now the relativist wants to quibble over concepts like real or unreal? Again, in the words of Einstein himself, ““..the distinction real - unreal is hardly helpful.”

So as to whether we’re really at the center of the universe — why are we arguing about such trivial concepts as the reality or unreality of our position in the universe? Surely it can’t bother the relativist if one chooses to believe that we absolutely are at the center of the universe.

Gravity or pseudo-gravity, Earth-centered or non-Earth-centered, real or unreal, up or down, left or right, man or woman…these distinctions are hardly helpful, people.

Murderers and Pedophiles and Geocentrists, oh my!

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.

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.

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.

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.