Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[trth_skr]

Quote: (Mark)
No, this is relative motion, and the observations will be consistent.It is clear that observations will not suffice (see the George Ellis quote above, 11:31AM, May 25th).

Originally Posted by wanerious

No, relative motion will do the trick. Ellis was not talking about what you think he was talking about. He was referring to possible solutions to the field equations, not making a statement supporting geocentrism. I believe you will not find in George Ellis an ally, unless you just want to quote-mine.

No, he was talking to a reporter from Sci. Amer. He was saying exactly what is quoted. He was pointing out the philosophical nature of cosmology for the interview. This is not from his scientific paper on a geocentric universe.

Again, I am not implying that he was advocating Geocentrism. But his remark points out that we cannot use observations to disprove Geocentrism.

Here it is again:

Originally Posted by Ellis

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,...For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations." Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.".

W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.

[hecd2]

I am afraid that in this post, trth-skr is demonstrating a very fundamental misunderstanding of the science. I am afraid he simply doesn't understand what he is talking about. Unless he has read and understood these papers, he is no position to comment on what the CMB does and does not demonstrate, and how good the cosmological concordance model is:

Bennett et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe(WMAP) Observations: Preliminary Maps and Basic Results, accepted by the Astrophysical Journal, available on line here:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/...ic_results.pdf

Spergel et al, First Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Determination of Cosmological Parameters, accepted by the Astrophysical Journal, available on line here:
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/pub_papers/firstyear/parameters/wmap_parameters.pdf

Tegmark et al, The Three-Dimensional Power Spectrum of Galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, submitted to ApJ, (2003) available on line here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0310725


Tegmark et al, Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP, submitted to ApJ, (2003) available on line here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph?0310723

Originally Posted by trth_skr

Interestingly, the CMB studies also supply evidence for an earth at the center. For instance, Max Tegmark, involved in al ot of CMB issues, says:

"This is our best guess as to what the cosmic microwave background looks like, from the paper described below. Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center..."

This is a laughable misinterpretation of what Tegmark is saying. Tegmark is referring to the anisotropy in the CMB not the fact that it is a sphere centred on the earth which is a given. The surface of last scattering is a sphere centred on wherever you observe it from, - if you observe it from a planet of a star in a galaxy 7 billion light years away, the CMB will be a sphere of radius 13.3 billion light years centred on that planet.

This is largely an observation. Next we add layers of theory (GR, Big Bang + expanding universe, redshift = recessional velocty, latest Hubble constant, etc., all of which are in question, and he goes on to say:

Theories are extremely strong claims in science supported by empirical evidence; which is what these are. Perhaps trth-skr would like to post recent references that credibly challenge GR and the concordance model of cosmology?

"...Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view..."

How do we know it continues on?

Because if it didn't, the CMB would turn off abruptly. Every day that passes the sphere expands by one light-day.

"...This censorship is frustrating, since if we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe..."

This is faith, pure and simple.

No, this is a recognition of the fact that the universe is opaque beyond the surface of last scattering and that last scattering occurs 380,000 years after Big Bang

To be continued

[hecd2]

Continuation

"...Light from still further away would not yet have had time to reach us, but most inflation theories predict that space is infinite..."

First, we really do not know that the spehere is 13.3 billion light years away. This is based on the idea that redshift is proportional to recessional velocity for EM in a vacuum.

The relationship between recession velocity and redshift is demonstrably true but is not the basis on which the surface of last scattering is given an age of 13.3 billion years. For that you have to read ref 2 above.The distance of the surface of last scattering is derived from features in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum, eg the angular scale of the first peak and trough, and the observed flatness of the universe.

On the other hand, extreme gravitational lensing has been proposed to explain many of the anomilies that have been seen.

Such as?

If this fantastic gravitational lensing is occuring, then perhaps it explains redshifts (see above, redshifts can be caused by gravitational fields).

This shows extreme ignorance of the science. What we are talking about here is not gravitational lensing (which exists but is a different phenomenon) but the early and late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. This is well understood and built into the cosmological concordance model. The masses in the universe cannot explain observed redshifts by a factor of at least a million. That is a hopeless speculation.

Since trth_skr misinterpreted Max Tegmark in support of geocentrism, and since he thinks the concordance model of cosmology is so flakey that it's easily overturned, I leave you with two Tegmark quotes from reference 4 above in which he and co-workers used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to calculate cosmological parameters based on the observed matter density power spectrum:

'Note that these numbers are in substantial agreement with the results of the WMAP team, despite a completely independent analysis and independent redshift survey data; this is a powerful confirmation of their results and the emerging standard model of cosmology. Equally impressive is the fact that we get similar results and error bars when replacing WMAP by the combined pre-WMAP CMB data. In other words, the concordance model and the tight constraints on its parameters are no longer dependent on any one data set — everything still stands even if we discard either WMAP or pre-WMAP CMB data and either SDSS or 2dFGRS galaxy data. No single data set is indispensable.'

and

'The fact that any simple model fits such accurate and diverse measurements is impressive evidence that the basic theoretical framework of modern cosmology is correct.'

Doesn't sound like the flakey model that trth_skr would have us think it is. All the recent observations support the concordance model to a remarkable degree.

Alec
http://www.evolutionpages.com/big_bang_no_myth.htm

[Liberian]

Originally Posted by trth_skr

Liberian:

Follow the thread in the first message. It is explained there. Also, We are talking more than coordinate transforms here. In GR, when you choose a center (i.e. fixed earth) you then have to reformulate the entire Einsteinian metric for a rotating universe. Thirring and others did this (see the thread) and found that what we think of as "fictitous" forces are actually manifested by the cosmic rotating masses as real forces at earth. In GR gravity and inertial forces (i.e.Coriolis) are melded together and are a manifestation of what is referred to as gravito-magnetism.

Read Gary's explanation (which is correct for the rotating earth case), then read the other explanation as to why his correct interpretation does not exclude a Geocentric interpretation.

There are three other Geocentrism threads on that forum, if you are interested. There is a lot of explanation in the four threads. Take some time to study them, then let's talk about it here.

trth_skr,

I must admit that that whole thing reminds me of a joke I heard once: "The world really does revolve around engineers, because they get to choose the coordinate system." It is possible to derive the equations of motion for a coordinate system that moves with the earth, down to the Chandler wobble, but the effects of the accelerating reference frame will be horrendous. Saying that the earth moves around the sun means simply that one is choosing a coordinate system with fewer of these additional forces, that I consider "fictitious" and which you say are "manifested by the cosmic rotating masses." One cannot prove the truth or falsehood of a coordinate system; one can merely demonstrate that it is more or less useful.

As such, now that I have spent a little time looking into geocentricism, I must admit that I consider it a lot like the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There may be a theological question behind it that is important to some people, but it strikes me as a colossal waste of time.

- Liberian

[challenger]

I read about half of this, with the "Lyell Was WRong", "Einstein Was WRong" spoofs... thought it might be interesting to point out that Einstein might actually be wrong. http://catholicintl.com/epologetics/...k-einstien.htm

[trth_skr]

hecd2 says:

"I am afraid that in this post, trth-skr is demonstrating a very fundamental misunderstanding of the science. I am afraid he simply doesn't understand what he is talking about. Unless he has read and understood these papers, he is no position to comment on what the CMB does and does not demonstrate, and how good the cosmological concordance model is:"

Got the articles. Pretty wild stuff. I will look through it as I get time. It must have been pretty exciting to be on that team.

It is clear that they are fitting parameters to there favored model, hot big bang with lots of dark matter and dark energy. Not a criticism, just a statement of fact.

What if the model is not correct? I understand that they are using the parameter fits to validate the model. But when you have to postulate ~96% of the matter content of the universe to be undetectable stuff (i.e., directly undetectable), this leaves a lot of questions open.

Note that I am not stating that Geocentrism is not in a similar position from the perspective of modern philosophy of science. In fact, the big bang model is clearly much better developed in terms of detail.

[trth_skr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr

Interestingly, the CMB studies also supply evidence for an earth at the center. For instance, Max Tegmark, involved in al ot of CMB issues, says:

"This is our best guess as to what the cosmic microwave background looks like, from the paper described below. Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center..."

Originally Posted by hecd2

This is a laughable misinterpretation of what Tegmark is saying. Tegmark is referring to the anisotropy in the CMB not the fact that it is a sphere centred on the earth which is a given. The surface of last scattering is a sphere centred on wherever you observe it from, - if you observe it from a planet of a star in a galaxy 7 billion light years away, the CMB will be a sphere of radius 13.3 billion light years centred on that planet.

Did you miss this:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....2&postcount=42

Originally Posted by trth_skr

I did not imply that he [Tegmark] was advocating Geocentrism. I know he is not.

In fact the usual explanation for the spherical shape is that we are seeing light at the farthest reaches of the universe, i.e., the velocity of light x time since the big bang = radius of the sphere observed. In this case the sphere is simply an illusion, and this is my understanding of what Max Tegmark believes.To your point, you are saying that the sphere would be seen from any point in space, and that is consistent with what I am saying.

Granted, I may have mispoken on the issue of redshift relative to CMB. I will take your word for it.

(hecd2:"The relationship between recession velocity and redshift is demonstrably true but is not the basis on which the surface of last scattering is given an age of 13.3 billion years. For that you have to read ref 2 above.The distance of the surface of last scattering is derived from features in the CMB anisotropy power spectrum, eg the angular scale of the first peak and trough, and the observed flatness of the universe.")

My point was one of seperating observations from interpretations of the meaning of observations. Looking at the papers you linked the interpretations are extremely complex. I realize that even getting to the cleaned up observations is complex.

[trth_skr]

hecd2:

"Since trth_skr misinterpreted Max Tegmark in support of geocentrism,..."

I stated I did not think this.


"...and since he thinks the concordance model of cosmology is so flakey that it's easily overturned, I leave you with two Tegmark quotes from reference 4 above in which he and co-workers used data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) to calculate cosmological parameters based on the observed matter density power spectrum:"

I do not think it is easily overturned nor unimpressive.

Nor do I think Geocentrism can be disproven.

[trth_skr]

hecd2:

"...No, this is a recognition of the fact that the universe is opaque beyond the surface of last scattering and that last scattering occurs 380,000 years after Big Bang..."

Again, the researchers started from a premise that a big bang occured then found the range of values for certain key model parameters, supported by observations of the CMB in perspective of its persumed role in the theory, which were supportable. It is impressive that they were able to cross-compare to other surveys.

Still, in all cases, they started with a premise of a big bang. Clearly the big bang is A theory which is supported by many observations in the universe.

Is it the only possible theory?

Please remeber this thread started as a discussion of the following (and I take partial fault for letting get so out of hand):

Gary Hoge argues that the motion of geosynchronous satellites disprove Geocentrism. He claims that Newtonian mechanics demonstrate geosynchronous orbits, and that there are no known forces to explain the Geocentric case. The point is, yes, Newtonian mechanics demonstrate geosynchronous orbits in the rotating/translating earth case, but Einstein's general relativity explains the forces in the geocentric case (i.e., after transforming coordinate systems to a fixed earth). Therefor Gary cannot state that the motions of geosynchronous satellites disprove Geocentrism. At best he can say the the motions of geosynchronous satellites disprove Geocentrism AND Einstein's general relativity. And in order to that he needs to address Einstein's general relativity.

See here:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/forum...hread.php?t=875

[trth_skr]

Originally Posted by Liberian

trth_skr,

I must admit that that whole thing reminds me of a joke I heard once: "The world really does revolve around engineers, because they get to choose the coordinate system." It is possible to derive the equations of motion for a coordinate system that moves with the earth, down to the Chandler wobble, but the effects of the accelerating reference frame will be horrendous. Saying that the earth moves around the sun means simply that one is choosing a coordinate system with fewer of these additional forces, that I consider "fictitious" and which you say are "manifested by the cosmic rotating masses." One cannot prove the truth or falsehood of a coordinate system; one can merely demonstrate that it is more or less useful.

As such, now that I have spent a little time looking into geocentricism, I must admit that I consider it a lot like the question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There may be a theological question behind it that is important to some people, but it strikes me as a colossal waste of time.

- Liberian

There is more to it than that. If you look at the previous thread, the point I am making is sort of the converse of what you are saying. I am not saying that because general relativity can account for the forces in the fixed earth case, therefor Geocentrism is proven.

I am saying that Gary Hoge cannot disprove Geocentrism just because he can account for the forces in a rotating earth case. His claim is that since he can account for the forces in a rotating earth frame (i.e., geosynchronous satellites orbit the earth), this does not prove that Geocentrism is impossible. My demonstration is that by choosing a fixed earth frame, then applying general relativity, analogous forces will be accounted for due to the rotating cosmic masses. This is Einsteins co-equivalence principle and is related to Mach's principle. I explain it here:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/forum...hread.php?t=875

[trth_skr]

Liberian:

Ignore the above thread, I made a mistake in it. See below.

The mistake is here:

Originally Posted by trth_skr

...His claim is that since he can account for the forces in a rotating earth frame (i.e., geosynchronous satellites orbit the earth), this does not prove that Geocentrism is impossible...

The entire paragraph should read (emphasis plus text added):

I am saying that Gary Hoge cannot disprove Geocentrism just because he can account for the forces in a rotating earth case. His claim is that since he can account for the forces in a rotating earth frame (i.e., geosynchronous satellites orbit the earth), this proves that Geocentrism is impossible. He claims there are no known forces in the Geocentric case to account for the patterns created by the satellites (i.e., figure "8's", zig-zags, ...). My demonstration is that by choosing a fixed earth frame, then applying general relativity, analogous forces will be accounted for due to the rotating cosmic masses. This is Einsteins co-equivalence principle and is related to Mach's principle.

I explain it here:

http://www.catholic-forum.com/forum...hread.php?t=875

[scm]

Can the motion of a Foucault pendulum be explained if the earth is not rotating?
(I hope I can understand the answer, since I am not a pysicist.)

[trth_skr]

Originally Posted by scm

Can the motion of a Foucault pendulum be explained if the earth is not rotating?
(I hope I can understand the answer, since I am not a pysicist.)

scm:

Yes, the Foucalt pendulum detects rotation, but cannot distinguish whether the rotation is due to the universe or the earth. If you look back here:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....6&postcount=29

Einstein himslef explains the principle.

[scm]

Originally Posted by trth_skr

scm:

Yes, the Foucalt pendulum detects rotation, but cannot distinguish whether the rotation is due to the universe or the earth. If you look back here:

http://forums.catholic.com/showpost....6&postcount=29

Einstein himslef explains the principle.

How embarassing. I thought I had read the entire thread before I posted. Sorry.

Here is something though, and I can not put it into scientific terms.

Suppose I was somewhere in space, and a friend of mine was off in space a distance away from me. If I managed to start myself rotating, I would get a feeling in my gut as a result of the acceleration. I am the one actually rotating, and I can say so because I can feel it in my gut. My friend would feel nothing, he is not revolving around me, he is not accelerating.

If the tables were turned, and I stayed stationary and my friend managed to start revolving around me, he would feel it in HIS gut, he is the one who is accelerating. I would feel nothing, because I am not accelerating, I am stationary.

If we were sensitive enough we would be able to feel the fact that we are on a rotating earth, however I suspect there are instruments that can measure the acceleration.

Are you saying that my distant friend can revolve around me, and thus induce a feeling of acceleration in my gut?

The reason I arrived at this is because from the little I know about time dilation, it is the one who is Actually accelerating that experiences the dilation. Even though the twin on earth sees the twin in the space ship accelerating away from him, and the twin on the ship sees the twin on earth accelerating away from HIM, only one is actually accelerating.

So in my laymans understanding, acceleration is not relative so to speak. And therefore I can use it to tell who is really rotating.

Ok, pysicists be gentle....

[PhilVaz]

scm << So in my laymans understanding, acceleration is not relative so to speak. And therefore I can use it to tell who is really rotating. Ok, pysicists be gentle.... >>

I am definitely not a physicist, I'm sure more knowledgeable folks will answer....Here are the disproofs of geocentrism offered before in this Jan 2005 thread by HECD2:

(1) Satellites are launched to the east
(2) Satellite launch sites are as close to the equator as nationally possible
(3) Inertial frames of reference have no unresolved forces
(4) The earth has obvious unresolved forces
(5) Foucault's pendulum
(6) Weather systems
(7) Oblate earth
(8) Newtonian mechanics
(9) Parallax in the starfields as a consequence of earth's rotation round the sun
(10) Red shift in the star field as a result of ditto
(11) 14 billion light year star field rotating around the earth once a day and wobbling with a amplitude of 186 million miles at an angle of 23.5 degrees annually is untenble
(12) Rotation of solar system about galactic centre and other proper motions
(13) Forces to explain retrograde planetary motion
(14) Precession of perhelion of Mercury
(15) Frame dragging around the rotating earth (just empirically demonstrated)

Some are more popular or well known than others I guess. And I am not prepared to get into the physics I'll admit, but the history of "creationism" in this country (whether flat-earthism, geocentrism, or young-earth creationism) is well explained and well refuted by this article

Phil P