Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

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:

catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875

I think geocentrism is a dead horse.

[quote=JimG]I think geocentrism is a dead horse.
[/quote]

neigh, neigh, neigh!

Wait till Robert Sungenis’ book, “Galileo was Wrong” comes out!

Yeah Galileo was wrong. Then we can expect the sequels:

Lyell Was Wrong, Darwin Was Wrong, Einstein Was Wrong, etc.

I so liked the Not By series, please let’s not start this new series on the Wrong Foot. :mad: :smiley:

Meant to add this: Theistic Evolution vs. Six-Day Creation

Phil P :crying:

And a couple more sequels he must write:

– the suggestion and first demonstration by Rutherford in 1904 that radioactivity might be used as a geological timekeeper –

Rutherford Was Wrong (2006)

– the development of the first mass analyser and the discovery of isotopes by J.J. Thompson in 1914 –

J.J. Thompson Was Wrong (2007)

– the idea by Russell in 1921 that the age of a planetary reservoir like the Earth’s crust might be measured from the relative abundances of a radioactive parent element (uranium) and its daughter product (lead) –

Russell Was Wrong (2008)

– the development of the idea by Gerling in 1942 that the age of the Earth could be calculated from the isotopic composition of a lead ore of known age –

Gerling Was Wrong (2009)

– the ideas of Houtermans and Brown in 1947 that the isotopic composition of primordial lead might be found in iron meteorites –

Houtermans and Brown Were Wrong (2010)

– the first calculation by Patterson in 1953 of a valid age for the Earth of 4.55 Ga (billion) using the primordial meteoritic lead composition and samples representing the composition of modern Earth lead –

C.C. Patterson Was Wrong (2011)

Heck, there’s loads of scientists the past 200 years he can write books about now. :mad: :smiley:

How about Nicolaysen who discovered the Isochron method as a reliable method for dating rocks?

Nicolaysen, L.O. 1961. Graphic interpretation of discordant age measurements on metamorphic rocks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 91, pages 198-206.

Nicolaysen Was Wrong (2012)

And these two folks who have articles on the constancy of radioactive decay rates?

Emery, G. T. 1972. “Perturbation of nuclear decay rates.” Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22, pages 165-202.
Hopke, P.K. 1974. “Extranuclear effects on nuclear decay rates.” Journal of Chemical Education, vol 51, pages 517-519.

Emery and Hopke Are Wrong (2013)

Yes, I have many new ideas for books now. :thumbsup:

Phil P :crying:

[quote=trth_skr]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:

catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=875

[/quote]

trth_skr,

Actually the transformation to a rotating coordinate system has absolutely nothing to do with general relativity. It’s a very simple set of equations that sometimes allows us to simplify analysis of dynamic systems. We introduce the complication of fictitious “forces” (specifically the centripetal and Coriolis “forces”) and hope that in the rotating coordinate system something else is enough simpler to make overall system simpler.

There is an analogy to general relativity. General relativity considers the force of gravity to be a “fictitious force” caused by the curvature of space-time in much the same way that the centripetal force is caused by the rotating coordinate system. But that’s about as far as it goes.

I’d like to hear an explanation of how “Einstein’s general relativity explains the forces in the geocentric case.” Can you help?

  • Liberian

[quote=PhilVaz]Yeah Galileo was wrong. Then we can expect the sequels:

Lyell Was Wrong, Darwin Was Wrong, Einstein Was Wrong, etc.

[/quote]

surely you don’t believe that the falsity of any of these theories is inconcievable, do you?

i mean, prior to einstein, you would presumably have used the example of “newton was wrong”, because how could that be true, after all…

[quote=Liberian]trth_skr,


I’d like to hear an explanation of how “Einstein’s general relativity explains the forces in the geocentric case.” Can you help?

  • Liberian

[/quote]

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.

Phil, we will convince you some day. You just need an open mind,and to listen to the very scientists you think you are supporting. Catholic apologists are so afraid of this topic that they are supporting a position which does not exist. Most scientists who know cosmology will admit that no one has proven the earth moves or rotates, period. If this is the case, why not at least have an open mind that the universe could be rotating? Why, who are you trying to support? Scientists who do not share your view? They really do not care; though philosophically they do not want an earth at the center. The only one who completely rejects this are some Catholic apologists. Think about it.

think, think, think…

Max Born said in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Here’s one from Einstein, himself:

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, ‘the sun is at rest and the earth moves,’ or ‘the sun moves and the earth is at rest,’ would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. – Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)”

“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.

[quote=trth_skr] Most scientists who know cosmology will admit that no one has proven the earth moves or rotates, period. If this is the case, why not at least have an open mind that the universe could be rotating?
[/quote]

The universe rotates around the earth every 24 hours? How fast would the most distant galaxy from Earth have to be moving to make that trip?

[quote=JimG]The universe rotates around the earth every 24 hours? How fast would the most distant galaxy from Earth have to be moving to make that trip?
[/quote]

It does not matter. Pleae read the posts on the thread I put at the beginning, it expalins the issue of velosity of light, etc.

John D << surely you don’t believe that the falsity of any of these theories is inconcievable, do you? >>

No that is the point. The hypotheses and theories of Lyell, Darwin, and Einstein are testable and falsifiable. That’s what makes them science, and not religion. They have been tested and verified over and over and over again.

Sungenis main argument for a geocentric universe and a young earth is that his biblical interpretations must be right. The belief that “God made the universe look old” (for example) is non-testable and non-falsifiable. Therefore it is not science. And his belief that the earth does not move is based on some verses from the Psalms, and other texts of the Bible. Therefore it is not science either. The “science” discussion is just window dressing. No reputable scientist holds to geocentrism, its been a dead issue for at least 300 years. I’ve looked at the Sungenis material on the age of the earth and evolution here

Jim G << The universe rotates around the earth every 24 hours? How fast would the most distant galaxy from Earth have to be moving to make that trip? >>

Calculated in a previous thread by Keating, myself and others. Actually not the most distant but take this one for instance:

NGC 4603 is 108 million light years from earth.

speed of light = 186,000 miles/sec x 60 secs/min x 60 min/hour x 24 hours/day x 365 days/year

miles that light travels in one year = 5,865,696,000,000 miles or 5.9 trillion miles approx

rate at which NGC 4603 travels around the earth in geocentrism view =

165,849,034,982,400,000,000 miles per hour or

46,069,176,384,000,000 miles per second or (dividing by 186,000 miles/sec)

247,683,744,000 times the speed of light

So NGC 4603 is travelling every day around the earth at
247 BILLION TIMES the speed of light

See this thread from Jan 2005

Phil P

General Relativity does not have a problem with distant objects rotating at faster than light speeds (special relativity, a limited case of general relativity does). Rosser explains, below, how this works in general relativity.

Form the posts located on the link I started this thread with:

catholic-forum.com/forum…hread.php?t=875

"…If I then transform the coordinate sytem to a fixed earth (non-rotating, non-translating, i.e., Geocentric). I will see the sun and stars travelling around me. The speed of the distant stars will be much greater than light speed. As an aside, this is where Karl Keating draws his objections to Geocentrism. Per GR, this is not an issue (the local speed of light is not exceeded anywhere). The rotating cosmic masses, with their very high velocity lead to a huge effect on the earth in this case. This is necassary to be able to formulate the observed physics from a stationary earth perspective. Rosser explains it:

“Relative to the stationary roundabout [the Earth], the distant stars would have a velocity rw [radius x angular velocity] and for sufficiently large values of r, the stars would be moving relative to O’ [the observer] with linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction…that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than c [the speed of light]. However, the restriction u < c = 3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General theory, it is possible to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c . However, this is not true when gravitational fields are present. In addition to the lengths of rods and the rates of clocks the velocity of light is affected by a gravitational field. If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either material bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field. If one considers the rotating roundabout as being at rest, the centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances, and it is consistent with the theory of General Relativity for the velocities of distant bodies to exceed 3 x 10^8 m/sec under these conditions.” (An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, W. G. V. Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p. 460)

So there you have it. In the “heliocentric” case- Newtonian solution. In the Geocentric case- analogous forces generated by distant rotating masses, whose “centrifugal gravitational field assumes enormous values at large distances.”

Read the entier thread. There are also three other Geocentric threads on this forum. If you are interested and have the time, look through them.

Phil, Phil, Phil… :wink:

From HECD2 – this sums it up well (from the Jan 2005 thread)

In truth there is little more that needs to be said. Why flog a dead horse? I leave you with a quote from Bob which displays his disdain for science and scientists and particularly for scientific terms that he quite obviously does not begin to understand:

“In the end, Relativity and its cousins (Minkowski space, Friedmann-metric, Killing vectors) is [sic] just a desperate attempt to find an absolute when there is none available…God gave us an absolute reference frame when He put the earth in the center, but men think they know better.”

Bob bases his belief that the earth is the unmoving centre of the universe not on science but on his belief in his interpretation of literal biblical inerrancy. That’s fine, and he’s entitled to have whatever religious belief he wishes, but in scientific terms, his geocentrism has no more validity than an unshakeable belief in pink unicorns.

From HECD2 post, see above Jan 2005 thread

http://ewancient.lysator.liu.se/pic/art/s/a/sachajanelle/mistyroseeflwood.jpg

Stop flogging that dead unicorn. :eek:

Phil P

<< Phil, Phil, Phil… >>

Switch to the age of the earth or evolution issue and we might have something to debate. I’m pretty well versed on these, there is plenty of material available, and I have plenty of ammunition. :thumbsup: :eek: No one accepts geocentrism.

Phil P

[quote=PhilVaz]<< Phil, Phil, Phil… >>

Switch to the age of the earth or evolution issue and we might have something to debate. I’m pretty well versed on these, there is plenty of material available, and I have plenty of ammunition. :thumbsup: :eek: No one accepts geocentrism.

Phil P
[/quote]

Very few accept Geocentrism. The amazing thing is it is that there is nothing to disprove it, the Church held it for at least 1600 years (even knowing what the alternatives were), and the Church itself turned into a self-embarrasment issue, with no reason to.

It was a philosophical issue then and still is a philosophical issue today.

The difference between Geocentrism and evolution is there are scientists militantly fighting for evolution.

The only ones fighting against Geocentrism (presumably for acentrism) are a few Catholic apologists, the very people who should be fighting for it!

Of course if the Church ever stated that it accepted Geocentrism, there would be outcry, at least from the media types. I imagine a few cosmologists would admit that it is not an impossible situation and largely a philosophical choice (see the George Ellis quote), but they would be drowned out by the media who would fall for the same invalid disproofs that many of the Catholic apologists fall for (i.e., parallax, abberation, geosynchronous satellites, Foucalt’s Pendulum , etc).

When I talk to scientists, yes, they argue against Geocentrism, but ultimately when you push them on the issues, they can only use philosophical issues to try and disprove Geocentrism. They try some subtle scientific issues, but the only ones they can use are very controversial in themselves, and really do not prove anything.

There is not real scientific evidence that the earth moves. So how do you know it does? Why do you beieve it does- because you were told so since you were 3 years old?

think, think, think,…

Come on people, Newton was wrong too. F=ma is a myth! A satanic lie!

God created the universe, and only He causes it to change. To reduce change (acceleration) to a mere mathematical formula is heresy.

[quote=Benedictus]Come on people, Newton was wrong too. F=ma is a myth! A satanic lie!

God created the universe, and only He causes it to change. To reduce change (acceleration) to a mere mathematical formula is heresy.
[/quote]

Actually, F=ma is in the relativistic analogy I present, but what can I say, if you believe math is evil…

By the way I like your quote (about facing east). The two times I attended a tridentine Mass, I did not feel like the Priest was “turning his back” on us, I felt like he was leading us in prayer. What a concept!

[quote=trth_skr]Max Born said in his famous book,“Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”,Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

"…Thus we may return to Ptolemy’s point of view of a ‘motionless earth’…One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein’s field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

Thus from Einstein’s point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
[/quote]

well, this is what i don’t really understand: if you accept einsteinan relativity, then it really doesn’t make any difference whether you take the earth to be moving relative to the rest of the universe, or whether you take the earth to be at rest relative to the rest of the universe. specifically, both are equally true.

so what’s the issue?

“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.

man. i really, really wish people understood this - scientists and non-scientists alike. the uncritical belief that science is somehow free of philosophical/ideological bias is one of the greatest intellectual diseases there is.

[quote=john doran]well, this is what i don’t really understand: if you accept einsteinan relativity, then it really doesn’t make any difference whether you take the earth to be moving relative to the rest of the universe, or whether you take the earth to be at rest relative to the rest of the universe. specifically, both are equally true.

so what’s the issue?

man. i really, really wish people understood this - scientists and non-scientists alike. the uncritical belief that science is somehow free of philosophical/ideological bias is one of the greatest intellectual diseases there is.
[/quote]

Please read the thread I linked. My only goal in this thread is to prove that Gary cannot disprove Geocentrism just because he can explain the motion of geosynchronous satellites with Newtonian mechancs in a rotating earth frame. I.e., having a model which works in a rotating earth frame does not exclude an analogous model when the earth is fixed, and using the strong principle of general relativity.In fact it has to work, or general reltivity does not. This is what I am trying to say.

As far as philosophy, it dominates cosmiology. There is no hard, scientific proof that the earth moves.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.