Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Failed Good Article

An image would be nice. joturner 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Forget about how it looks, it completely lacks citations for the vast body of its text. 75.4.223.152 03:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a high velocity

If the Earth is fixed, and the objects in the sky are revolving around the Earth, they are moving at quite a high velocity. The Sun, at 149,000,000 km from the Earth would be moving at 10,835 km/sec, or about 3.6% of the speed of light. An object about 4.1 billion km from Earth would be revolving around the Earth at the speed of light. Voyager 1, 8.8 billion km away would be revolving at 2.1 times the speed of light. The nearest star, proxima centauri, 4.22 light years distant would be truly whipping about at 9,600 times the speed of light. Some argue that the stars are not that far away, but it doesn't really matter much - Voyager 1 hasn't reached the stars, so we know they are father out than that. I might have made a few math errors, but it's at least close.--RLent 17:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Newton's laws of gravity/motion

Wouldn't Geocentrists have to throw out newton's laws of gravity? How do they counter or explain this?--Havermayer 21:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Basic skepticism towards Geocentrism. Should these arguments go into the article?

Does not a geocentric position assume that scientists are missing the blatantly obvious and are lying to us? What motivation could hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, with religious stances like christian, jewish, deist, atheist, etc? This also does not include amateur scientists and others who study the findings of scientists and see no problem with them, or see any deception on scientists part. Scientists are also rewarded for proving that the current theories are incorrect, or lacking in some way. It would seem easier to assume that modern geocentrists are probably incorrect.

And again, I have a feeling that something accepted by 99.99 (or maybe even 100%) of experts in the field of study is probably based on solid evidence. And, something advocated against this consensus opinion are probably wrong, especially since almost all of the people are not experts in the field, and are doing it out of religous motivation alone.

Very good arguments are needed to overcome my skepticism, and at this point I think its fair to label modern geocentrism as a crazy fringe conspiracy theory.

My question is whether basic arguments like this that deal only why people should be skeptical of geocentrism, without dealing with the specific arguments should be included into the article.

--Havermayer 21:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia we are not trying to convince anyone of anything. To the extent that arguments are used, we are reporting on the arguments used by others, which needs to be backed up by verifiable sources. Even then, there is also a hard-to-define requirement of being encyclopedic, notable, important. If the Oakdale Junior High Science Club issues an edict proclaiming modern geocentrism to be a "crazy fringe conspiracy theory", we can't include that. If the American Astronomical Society does the same, we may consider including it. We should leave it to the readers to draw their own conclusions; personally I don't think an argument like "Could 99.9% of scientists be wrong?" is going to sway anyone, one way or another.

Additionally, general relativity admits a geocentric description that can adequately describe the same physical universe as described by more usual descriptions. Scientifically speaking, what is the true centre of the universe is as much a non-issue as whether the "true" year now is 2006, 5766, or 577. To mainstream physicists, all centres are equally true or untrue. Lambiam^Talk 05:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Distinction required between Universe and Observable Universe

The article as it stands seems week as it trashes out all the old arguments without once mentioning the distinction between the universe as a concept and the observable universe within which science makes extrapolations. I tried adding something on it to "there is no special position" section but that is probably not the best spot. Any ideas? --Lucaas 17:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source for such an addition? --Lambiam^Talk 04:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

See: Lineweaver, Charles H., Davis, Tamara M. (March 2005). "Misconceptions about the Big Bang". Scientific American.

It is a well-written article, but how does it impinge on the topic of Modern geocentrism? The article states "The universe does not seem to have an edge or a center or an outside, so how can it expand?" and "It [the universe] needs neither a center to expand away from nor empty space on the outside (wherever that is) to expand into." So it agrees with the mainstream scientific viewpoint that the universe has no centre – without giving further arguments for that position. The article makes the well-known distinction between Universe and Observable universe. We don't need this article for a source for that distinction. But what does that have to do with modern geocentrism? Do you have a source that relates that distinction in some way to the geocentric viewpoint? --Lambiam^Talk 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and find that source again, the problem I'm sure you are aware of is this: if one says "the universe came from the big bang", well one is really saying (cf, article) that the universe here refers only to the "observable universe". Ie, only those "parts of the universe which form a sphere around the earth" came from the big bang, as for parts of the universe that are beyond our telescopic reach, well, don't really know, but if they are there, they came not from the same bang. This is why there are theories about multiverses, which complicate the meaning of the totality of the word "universe" itself.

Secondly, if you look at cosmological maps, you'll often find the earth at the centre, since this is the source of measurements that go to make up the most complete maps. --Lucaas 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I think you did not understand what the SciAm article said about the Big Bang.
2. I think that you do not understand the origin and essence of multiverse theories.
3. I don't see what all this has to do with the topic of the present article.
4. What you say qualifies as "original research". It is not good enough if you cite a source that offers support to your theory. What you must do, is cite a source describing that theory.

--Lambiam^Talk 09:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Lambian for your thoughts, a penny is on the way. It would be nice to see some backup or argument, since "I think" just the same of you, anyhow, as I said, the penny is in the mail.

However, I do agree with you that, just like the existing text of the "there is no special position" section, I have yet to include a citation. To be honest, I can't actually put my hand on the book it came from, but will eventually.--Lucaas 17:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lambian, the references you added don't seem to make the same argument, ie, to meaning no special position. Also they argue both sides, that the constants vary and do not. As to large scale, well I also have a reference re, the size of the observable universe extending 14b light years in all directions centred on earth. See Multiverse_(science)#Open_multiverse --Lucaas 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I referred the reader to Wikipedia articles for source references for the claim made here. Of course these articles inform the reader of the various points of view in the debate. I would not call that "arguing both sides". We don't know whether the constants vary or not. All we know is that observations tell us that the variation, if it exists, is small. That is the claim reported in the present article, and it is backed up by the sourced article referred to. For the rest, see below. --Lambiam^Talk 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I propose adding this paragraph into the "there is no speciial position" section:

One must remember, however, that though scientific laws do not give any special place for the earth, in cosmology, all theories, big bang etc. are strictly based, not upon the universe as such, but only upon the observable universe. As is evidenced by looking at the position of earth in any cosmological map, the observable universe is a moving circumferance centred upon the earth and its satellite telescopes. Such problems have given rise to multiverse theories and may disalllow giving any finite date for the big bang.

Good points are made without any contradiction. The article sells itself short if it does no admit to at least this much scientific centrism .Lucaas 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the statement about "good points". Wikipedia articles should not make points. As to your proposed paragraph: Theories are not "based" on the universe or on observations. The notion of "observable universe" as it is generally understood is itself a consequence of a widely held theory. To be scientific, theories need not be limited by observability; all they need to do is make predictions about at least certain observations, and then hope that the observations will agree within reasonable bounds. Our observations are limited to the observable universe. That is a truism. If you are on a large sphere, anchored to one spot, your observations are limited to the area stretching to the horizon in all directions. That area is a spherical disk, and you, the observer, are in its centre. Observers in other spots have a different spherical disk to which their observations are limited. That is somewhat of a triviality. Suppose you cannot communicate across space. Yet, your observations might lead you to the theory that you're on a big sphere. Note that this theory is somewhat unfalsifiable; you cannot know that it is not a half sphere. However, the "full sphere" theory has the same predictive power as the "half sphere" theory, but is more eleganr, and therefore preferable on esthetic grounds. In that theory, the other observers are on the same sphere. In no version does any of this give rise to a "multisphere" theory. The essence of the "full sphere" theory is that the privileged position of being in the centre of this spherical disk is based on an illusion; there is no special position. The paragraph you propose to add kind of turns this on its head. --Lambiam^Talk 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good points, of course are part of a good article. A good point is one that is backed up and represents some existing argument in the field.

Your reply is somewhat general but essentially agrees upon the centrism I'm trying to convey. "Observable universe", is not claimed as a "consequence" but as a basis for the theories of big bang etc. The consequence of the strange question "What is beyond the horizon?", (not a very different question than that made in medieval times) is, I believe, important and multiverse tries to account for it. You are right that wherever the observer is the spheroid will centre on them that point is made too in the proposed paragraph above. One cannot say factually that there is or is not anything beyond the horizon, one can only answer both questions, what it means if there is something (stars etc.) beyond, and what it means if there is not. It there is, then we get multiverse or some kind of permanent big bang, ie, a universe without a certain "age", relevant since, one often hears claimed: "the universe is xxx years old." If nothing is beyond then I refer to your beliefs above. The problem, just like in medieval times, is that we have never measured from another point of view. Theories being more elegant and predictive are all good, but secondary less elegant theories should not be completely ignored in a kind of science fascism.Lucaas 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit [1] is unsourced, and does not take account of the criticism I gave above. Again: (1) the "observable universe" is a technical term. As such it is based on the presently accepted cosmological theories, and not the other way around, as you wrote. (2) The sentence about "moving circumferance" does not make any sense. You cannot see any such thing by looking at a cosmological map. (3) It is not a "problem". (4) It has not given rise to multiverse theories. (5) I cannot interpret (assign a meaning to) the bit about not allowing a "finite date" to the Big Bang. (6) No centrism is "discernible in the emergence of such novel theories". The whole text, to the extent it is not incomprehensible, is false. All of it is original research. Please stop adding this text. --Lambiam^Talk 02:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for suggesting it was original, however, I cannot claim such. (1) a technical term? No it is a fact of such theories. If you think about it (and I'm not forcing you) it is clear that assuming the universe as the "observable universe" is, often done (eg, big bang theory) but risky since nobody knows if there is any more "stuff" beyond the horizon. (2) The multiverse theory (read the source I gave above Multiverse_(science)#Open_multiverse, a direct quote from which is that the observable universe is "a sphere centered on the Earth". There are numerous sources for multiverse theories and they all deal with this problem of observable Vs theoretical universe (ie, all stuff even what lies beyond the horizon), it is not a mere technical issue it has deep implications for cosmological theory. (3) I did see your points raised suggesting I put the cart before the horse (ie, that theory follows observation), this is an important issue for the philosophy of science but is not totally relevant here; though the Hubble observations are key. It is obvious, is it not, that no time can be given to the "birth of the universe," only one for the "observable universe" can be given. The age of the universe is often said to be 14 billion years, this fact is based upon a universe centred upon earth!! It would not be such for someone beyond the horizon. Please try not reverting again, you can only do this three times according to etiquette.Lucaas 22:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholly with Lambiam. I can not really make enough sense out of your comments to tell you where you're wrong. I also do not believe that your ideas are relevant to the sociological phenomenon of modern geocentrism. That is, if the people who call themselves modern geocentrists do not talk about multiverses, then we are safe if we don't mention it in the article. --Art Carlson 16:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well you are right it can be difficult to understand if you're not familiar with multiverse theories. Your point about the social phenomenon of geocentrism is a good one, however, that is why this section is included as a rider in the scientific section. I'd suggest leaving it there unless there is some specific argument against it.

--Lucaas 01:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have given ample specific arguments against it. I don't understand your insistence on pushing this unsourced, irrelevant, incoherent and incomprehensible text. But then, the arguments you present here are not terribly relevant, coherent and comprehensible either. --Lambiam^Talk 06:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This is mere opinion about an argument not a specific one. If you have nothing other than emotive opinion about the argument then try something other than editing a scientific page. Let us get off this mud slinging and start with a basic question: why in your opinion did multiverse theories come to be? To my knowledge, it's because of this very problem I discuss above and in the sourced article. Because we cannot exclude the fact of there possibly being stars etc. beyond our horizon we cannot say for sure that, winding back toward the big bang, there was nothing already there prior to the big bang. Hence we get the idea of refering to the universe as the "observable universe" and the other possible stuff as another universe. Thus undermining the tradition of calling the universe, "everything". Again I ask you to please read multiverse

Lucaas

There is a distinction between the observable universe and universe, but multiverse (science) is not that distinction. The observable universe is the universe as observed limited by the speed of light condition so that there is a horizon which prevents us from seeing more of the universe than this ball centered on us. The total universe may indeed by much larger than this, but it need not necessarily be a multiverse in character which is a speculation that there may be parallel or alternative realms of reality with different laws of physics or deterministic causality. All pretty much irrelevant to this article which is about modern geocentrism. The observable universe is observer-centric because of various relativistic constraints. However, the cosmic variance, at least philosophically, prevents us from getting too cocky about the observable universe having anything more than an accidental significance.

Therefore, the prose in the article space is removed for lacking relevance, verifiable references, and generally lacking a rigorous writing-style and proper encyclopedic requirements.

--ScienceApologist 18:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your reasoning here, and that multiverse is not the distinction between the observable and the theoretical universe, nor does the article does claim this. There are many different multiverse variants (the Open Multiverse, which is relevant here; the parallel or bubble universes etc.). And you can see that the issue of the horizon is quite provocative for modern cosmology. How can it be irrelevant to the article if, as you say it is "observer-centric." It would remind you of when primitive man thought there was nothing beyond there own horizon. You point out the issue yourself: "The total universe may indeed by much larger than this, but it need not necessarily be a multiverse", I am willing to grant that it need not be multiverse (which I never claimed, by the way), then your question is "what bearing does this have on big bang, the age of the universe, and other cosmo theories"? Quite alot, in fact, and so this issue is relevant. The horizonal limit is giving rise to many theories that try to encompass further possibilities of space beyond the "observer's bubble".

As to the prose in the article, better follow wiki guidelines and improve or at least indicate where it is weak,than just remove it. 84.203.38.31

I have read multiverse and can discern no relevance. I don't know why you say the Big Bang theory cannot apply to the universe as a whole. I don't know where you see a "problem". The time elapsed since the Big Bang is not ambiguous if the question of a singularity is left open and the Big Bang defined as what has happened since inflation. And all of this has absolutely no bearing upon the belief system of modern geocentrism. Find another forum to propagate your pet theories, they don't belong here! --Art Carlson 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reading that article, you might also look at universe and observable universe. I'd suggest you are being rather ingenuous here, you obviously know about the introduction of Inflation to account for similarities across non-causally connected regions, you must know then why this was introduced and that it is still quite controversial, an ad-hoc addition to a rather elegant theory. Inflation is there to account for similarities between regions at or beyond the horizon. The fact of the horizon is ignored by you. The horizon is curved with the earth at its centre. Just look at any full cosmology map, where is earth? Slap bang in the centre, don't tell me you don't believe your own eyes! The point being made in the article was only supposed to be a minor addition to give a richer picture of the problem.

I'd suggest you take your "pet page" and set up your own wikipedia if your only interest here is in censoring genuine, referenced content from others.

--Lucaas

Calling inflation "ad hoc" is being a bit disingenuous in itself. As I just wrote over at cosmic inflation, this kind of exponential expansion of space time is a general feautre of most early universe scenarios. The exceptions are models which do not inflate. --ScienceApologist 11:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Inflation is still controversial though, unless you do science by doing a "top of the pops" of theories. I call it "ad hoc" and that is my opinion, this is the talk page afterall! The horizon problem is the root issue, and what does a horizon look like, you ever been out at sea?

--Lucaas

This has nothing to do at all with your advocacy at this page. Your skepticism of cosmic inflation can be discussed in more appropriate arenas. However, your continued insistence on including your rather troubled prose is fairly quixotic. I suggest ceasing and desisting. --ScienceApologist 13:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by Quixotic, the prose is an issue which you are not qualified to comment upon. The skepticism toward Inflation is not in the article it is just here in the talk page. I'd suggest you also to cease and desist if I thought it might make a difference. Why you are you so hostile, I've no idea, but I do hope you get over it so we can deal with the real issues here instead of flinging insults.

As all equal editors of Wikipedia, it is up to the editors to comment on prose to obtain a consensus about how the article should read. Right now, consensus is decidedly not in your favor. What's more, talkpages are for discussing articles. They are not for you to spout whatever ideas you'd like to promote. It would be best for you to stop this behavior right now. --ScienceApologist 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My goodness, what venom, what part of the world are you from?

Talk pages are open, luckily you can't act as censor here at least.

Consensus, I would say, has not been reached. Both you (as ScienceApologist) and Lambian seem to want to revert to before the section on cosmology, but in some kind of autistic manner don't seem to know, or be able to cogently explain, why. On the other hand both myself and Besselfunctions seem to agree with the wording.

However, being a page about Geocentrism it would seem unfair to give the consensus toward two people who seem to be quite medieval about asserting heliocentrism or who try to assert that there is no centre (without a centre, an horizon is meaningless, logicallly speaking, unless you are a flat-earther and everything is square), see horizon problem. The idea of having a section "No special position" without mentioning the place of the observer (ie, earth usually) in cosmology is inherently flawed. As to the prose, well, look at the prose in the rest of the article. From the guidelines: "The prime values of the talk page are communication, courtesy and consideration". You'd want to brush up on your courtesy (as would I, after talking to you).

--Lucas

No, I made no indication that agreed with the wording. Please leave me out of your conflict. Besselfunctions 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

More discussion of this tangential issue is refactored to User talk:Lucaas. -ScienceApologist 13:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The discussion you refer to was censored from this page in the previous edit to this one by ScienceApologist. There is some suspicion that he wished to remove any trace of the argument because he made such a poor one.

The removed discussion is not, as you said, now on my talk page. In the removed discussion four editors made many contributions, these included discussions of the issue of the movement of our galaxy, the constancy of the speed of light and how it gives rise to the earth centred sphere. The section removed from this talk page in the previous edit laid out clearly the pros and cons of the argument and in my opinion left much of the issue unresolved. The main point being the empirical fact that the observable universe is a sphere centred on earth. Yes this is explained by the constancy of light that gives rise to the horizon and centre, however, this fact of a centre (or horizon), as a fact, remains and is relevant to the page, if only to clear up the issue by denying it, as some editors on this page wish to do, see horizon problem

--Lucas 00:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The only reason the discussion is not on your talkpage is because you removed it. The "argument" in question has no bearing on this article and so was rightly refactored. Neither the horizon problem nor the observable universe is referenced by any of the modern geocentrism advocates. --ScienceApologist 00:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my personal talk page is not the place for it. The argument does have a bearing on this article since it concerns not what geocentrism advocates propose but the section in the article dealing with science and the statement that "There is [scientifically] no special position", in other words it is a scientific point I'm trying to make about the observable universe being spherical and centred. The horizon matters because it gives rise to problems which a good cosmology should consider. The horizon mean a centre. The centre on most maps is Earth.Lucas

The center is arbitrary as per cosmic variance. This was already pointed out to you. There is no special position because all observers view themselves at the center regardless of where they are located. --ScienceApologist 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well finally you give something approaching the issues raises, even if it leads to the rather fuzzy discussion of statistical measurement of the universe and the anthropic principle. So this is relevant to the page. It seems rather contradictory to say "there is no special position 'cos all observers are at the center". This is the very centrism to which I wished to alert the article's reader. Let us say it represents a stage in the history of centrism: from Geocentrism, to Heliocentrism and now to Anthrocentrism (or some such term).Lucas

This is acentrism because it doesn't promote any center as preferred. It therefore is accurately reported in the article at present. --ScienceApologist 14:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you are trying to play with words and fool yourself, how could it possibly be without a center, or centers, if you say *every* observer is at the center. All observers are human, QED, it is Anthropocentric.--Lucas

An observer in physics is not "human", despite what wacko New Age junkies may say. An observer represents an event in space time that has access to the information about other events in spacetime. --ScienceApologist 15:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

An event is an event, an observer is an observer, seems you confuse the two terms, try checking the meaning of the word observer in the nearest (science) dictionary. An event is the thing that gets observed, an event is not an observer. You are mistakenly waxing poetic and using tranferred epithet in saying that an event can "have access to information". Empirically observers are humans. Science is usually empirical. Umpteen references in science texts refer to "the observer" and mean by it, the person doing the observing. They will commonly use as a personal subject of sentences, eg, the observer detects, views, notices, etc. Even wikipedia's science article describes an observer as: "A person that is observing, its role in observational sciences and physical reference frames: see observation"

--Lucas

I don't really care what you think I've confused or not, the fact of the matter is that the mathematics of the observable universe does not depend on human beings observing anything. It is a theoretical, not empirical, argument. --ScienceApologist 19:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't care! Then why have you made several interesting comments above in this discussion? The fact of the matter is that you are now changing the discussion to whether or not the observable universe depends on an observer. I presume this means you concede the point that wikipedia is right in saying that an observer is a person. As to theory versus empiricism; the theory is made by generalisations from, and verification by, empirical evidence, otherwise you are doing metaphysics and not science.. --Lucas

You presume wrong, and I still don't care about your musings which continue to have no bearing on this article. --ScienceApologist 22:56, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm happy for you, but nor am I interested in your apathy, nor in what you do and don't care about. I am glad to hear that after several attempts to show otherwise, you finally concede that an observer is a person, give up your attempt to change the discussion and allow us to return to the main point about (a)centrism. How many other arguments you made would end in this same apathy, a sign of failure no doubt. --Lucas

An observer in physics is not a person. --ScienceApologist 15:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So you say, you described an observer, in a positive was as: an event that has access to information about other events. An event however is what gets observed, the thing an observer observers, it is not the observer. Maybe you were trying to descibe an "observation", since I presume you are not denying that physicists are humans?

In physics the only specificity an "observer" has is the event corrdinate and reference frame it occupies. No human being necessary. To wit, an "observer" collapses a wavefunction in quantum mechanics but does not have to be a human. Neither does it have to be a human for the math to work in any other part of theoretical physics. --ScienceApologist 17:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A reference frame is just that, as is an event, again neither of these are an observer. If an observer has a role of coordinating then I ask you when is the last time you saw a dog coordinating? Are you suggesting an observer is just a specificity that means: a position and an event? Then an observer is almost everything, since events are going on all the time all over the place.

The understanding of the collapse of a wavefunction did not lead to us redefining what an observer is, it led to a question as to whether the observer had a role in it, jury still out, but seems like it may also collapse due to something else (decoherence) that is not due to the observer. By the way, the issue we consider is cosmology not only physics, ie, the term observer as it is used in cosmology.

--Lucas

You have many misconceptions in the above descriptions. But Wikipedia talkpages are not the place to educate those with knowledge and understanding deficiencies, I encourage you to look into other venues to further your opinion pushing/education. Perhaps a class at your local college or university. --ScienceApologist 23:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

reading the above, the misconceptions appear to be mainly with you, I'd suggest you find a decent dictionary or maybe try learning English, if that is not your mother tongue and decist from your many failed attempts to argue from authority. 84.203.43.64

Seems like there is little to back up the claim that an observer is not human, no citations have been given, and so this appears to be merely a personal opinion, misconception or bias, of Science Apologist. On the other hand I suggest you turn to many a scientific text, especially cosmology, and you will find desciptions of observer of the like "the observer sees, notices etc." Parallax a basic tenet of physics also refers to the observer in this way. Secondly to give further back up to this point see wikipedia page on observer, a direct quote from which: "Observation is an activity of a sapient or sentient living being, which senses and assimiliates the knowledge of a phenomenon in its framework of previous knowledge and ideas." and further "Observation invariably requires logical thinking as logic is necessary for assimiliation of the knowledge that is presented by an observation."

--Lucas

Summary of Arguments on Observational Centrism I

Let me try and summarise the substantive and referenced arguments made in the previous section and draw a line over matters such as the prose or matters of opinon about who understands what or who is trying to do what.

The first argument is Lambian's, to quote:

That area [of observation] is a spherical disk, and you, the observer, are in its centre. Observers in other spots have a different spherical disk to which their observations are limited...suppose you cannot communicate across space. Yet, your observations might lead you to the theory that you're on a big sphere...you cannot know that it is not a half sphere. However, the "full sphere" theory has the same predictive power as the "half sphere" theory, but is more elegant, and therefore preferable on aesthetic grounds. In that theory, the other observers are on the same sphere. In no version does any of this give rise to a multisphere theory.

Here we have an argument about the elegance of a sphere rather than a half-sphere but how can it be said that observations might lead to theory of a sphere? It is because of the constancy of the speed of light that the there is a spheroid observable universe around the centre of the observer, not observations, though observations seem to confirm this.

Second arguments he makes:

(1) the "observable universe" is a technical term. As such it is based on the presently accepted cosmological theories, and not the other way around, as you wrote. (2) The sentence about "moving circumferance" does not make any sense. You cannot see any such thing by looking at a cosmological map. (3) It is not a "problem". (4) It has not given rise to multiverse theories. (5) I cannot interpret (assign a meaning to) the bit about not allowing a "finite date" to the Big Bang. (6) No centrism is "discernible in the emergence of such novel theories".

1. Yes the notion of observable, or observability, is limited by the constancy of the speed of light this we all agree, and have since the start, agreed upon, it is the very thing that makes the "universe" spherical and centred upon the observer. 2. The maps usually show earth at centre. The circumference moves because our galaxy moves, no? 3. Dating the birth of the universe is a problem, we can give it for the "observable universe", lets say 14b years ago. At that time however, the stuff beyond our horizon at the moment, would still be outside it 14b years ago. That is unless some theory is proposed to handle this problem of being the centre of a sphere of observability. Thus such a theory, eg, multiverse, would have come from such centrism.

Secondly, the arguments of Science Apologist:

The observable universe is the universe as observed limited by the speed of light condition so that there is a horizon which prevents us from seeing more of the universe than this ball centered on us. The total universe may indeed by much larger than this, but it need not necessarily be a multiverse

The fact that it is spherical, due to the constancy of the speed of light, from "relativistic constraints," is patently true. It is this very fact that gives us a centre, as you suggest. Explaining why it is spherical does not take away from the very fact that it is spherical or spheroid and the observer (empirically, earth) is at the centre. This is the main point.

The thing both Lambian and Science Opologist agree upon is the sphere, a trivial fact for one, for the other explanable by relativity and so has no further relevance. Neither address the problem of the stuff beyond the observational sphere. Would it not seem naive to think that beyond the horizon there is mere nothingness? And especially since this nothingness arbitrarily arises because of the value for the speed of light and thus delimiting the size of the sphere.

In my opinion, I do not consider this original research or idiocentric discussion, it is how people think or have thought about this, as is obvious from the referenced sources in the article.

Thirdly, the arguments of Bessels Function: .

--Lucas

If there are any other relevant discussion directly on the science of this matter please include below. Any other matters regarding this, see article.

I find it hard to argue with you because you appear not to understand what I (and others) write, nor do you understand what you are talking about yourself. I tried to explain a problem with your reasoning by using a simple analogon not requiring special understanding of cosmology: observers anchored on a sphere. I did not forward that as a replacement cosmological model. The theories described in the article are not "my" theories, and they are not theories I "agree upon". What is described here are mainstream cosmological theories. Whether they are correct or whether there is a problem with them is an issue that is of no relevance here. According to mainstream cosmological theories, the Big Bang happened the same amount of time ago everywhere. That was mentioned explicitly in the Scientific American article you referred to. You appear to apply a Newtonian viewpoint to this motion thing. Well, assuming a conservative estimate for the size of the observable universe (50 Gly), and noting that our galaxy has an estimated speed of one third lightyear per century, that amounts to a displacement of less than 0.0000000007% of that size per century. I can assure you that the accuracy and resolution of the best cosmological maps is not enough to make that noticeable. More importantly, the observable universe is actually the set of spacetime points to which we are causally connected: we as observers are in their "future light cones". By moving around, you cannot move into the cones of spacetime points you are not causally connected to. In other words, nothing will become part of the observable universe that was not already part of it. The observable universe can only shrink in time to a proper subset of what it was before. I suggest that you take further questions and debate to the Science reference desk. This talk page is meant for discussing improvements to the article. --Lambiam^Talk 06:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I second that. I don't really understand what point you are trying to make about the nature of the observable universe, but I am fairly sure of one thing: Nary a reader who is interested in learning about Modern Geocentrism will care a whit about whatever it is you are saying. Unless you can establish a connection to improving this article, please leave both the article and the talk page alone! --Art Carlson 12:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments on Observational Centrism II

Further to the laying out of the substantive arguments on this point above Lambiam states:

"the Big Bang happened the same amount of time ago everywhere"

This point is contentious, since I have never seen claimed that a star that might be beyond our horizon by the same distance as the radius of our horizon could possibly have been at the same point when the big bang is thought to have occurred.

The other issue raised is that of the movement of the galaxy. Yes you are right it is fractional and is somewhat irrelevant to this article. So let us drop the moving circumference issue.

By the way the entire issue here on the horizon and multiverse etc., is based on relativity and not the Newtonian system. It is really a very simple point and may be hard to understand since complication seems to be the name of the game here. It is just this: that the observable universe is circular and centred upon the observer. How it is explained as being true is not the issue here. (it is explained of course by the constancy of light). This gives us the notion of a horizon, which, in a way, is just another name for the issue of centrality.

A secondary issue concerns what this fact leads to. It is claimed above in the proposed addition to the article that, on the theoretical plane it has lead cosmologists to consider the space beyond the horizon and to theorise with that in mind. Others, above, claim that the horizon (our centrality) is not an issue, and everything both beyond and inside our horizon came from the big bang concomitantly at a certain moment in the past (eg, 14b years).

However, this does not seem to explain the theoretical position of a twin-earth located two horizonal radii from us, since this would give us two singularities, ie, a doublearity

Lucas

The above comment represents irrelevant banter and original research. --ScienceApologist 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

As is plain to anyone reading the above, it merely summarises the discussion so far, including mainly a discussion of the points made by both "Science Apologist" and Lambiam above in section I. Please try and focus on the matter at hand, for example, is it or is it not, contentious to say: "the Big Bang happened the same amount of time ago everywhere"? Is the movement of the observers (empirically, earth), irrelevant to the shape of the horizon? Is the fact of our "light" horizon that places the observer at the centre of a sphere enough to show an empirical geocentrism? Are theories that try to handle this horizonal problem, in a sense, attempting to come to terms with this centrism?

Lucas

Present citable sources or shut up. Lambiam^Talk 12:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Touché! Lucas

On the point that "the Big Bang happened the same amount of time ago everywhere:

Never heard of cosmic inflation?! --Art Carlson 19:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

True for you, inflation might claim that background radiation is from stuff that had been centered in the singularity, but not for objects even further away. As far as I know it accounts for similarities in very old radiation (background) that would be from stars that are now outside each other's horizon's but does not do so for the more distant, possible, objects. Inflation is also an idea to consider in tandem with the horizon/centre issue as it could be considered as partly steming from this problem Lucas 20:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Big Bang is irrelevant to this article and isn't even mentioned in the text. Nor should it be. --ScienceApologist 13:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason Big Bang has become an issue during this argument about making an addition to the article in respect of the sphericality and centrism of the horizon. The problem concerns the big bang, in so far as big bang theorist's claims extend, coincidently, only to stellar matter that is currently within our horizonal bubble. Inflation tries to account for areas that are not within each other's horizon. The horizon is a big issue, thus centrism is too.

--Lucas

Further discussion by Science Apologist and Lucas came down to the issue of whether or not an observer is a human being/scientist or is not. There has been little secondard evidence to show clearly which is correct since the wikpage on observer says yes but Science Apologist maintains that in physics the observer is defined as not being a person.

--Lucas

Text moved from main page

I've moved this here just in case I'm mistaken about this...

Another is in Joshua 10, 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:[2]

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

I think it shouldn't be in the article because it indicates a heliocentric, rather than geocentric, view of the universe. It clearly says "the sun was in the midst of heaven."

SheffieldSteel 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who think they must draw astronomical conclusions from this text, the geocentric version is less contrived. Furthermore, this verse should stay in simply because it is commonly cited as Biblical evidence for geocentrism. If you have an attributable reference that suggests the other reading, that might be interesting to add. (I will wait a bit for further comment before putting the text back.) --Art Carlson 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way is interpreting "the sun... in the midst of heaven" to mean that the earth is the centre of the universe less contrived than taking it to mean that the sun is? The passage does, after all, refer to the sun. And what is biblically based geocentrism, if not drawing astronomical conclusions from the text? SheffieldSteel 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Sun stood still ..." implies that it usually moves, and in particular that the daily motion is caused by the motion of the Sun rather than that of the Earth. "... in the midst of heaven" could refer to a central position for the Sun in the astronomical order, but that interpretation would be hard to reconcile with the Sun normally not standing still there. The more obvious interpretation is that the middle of the visible sky is meant. I personally think that such discussions are silly. Fortunately we don't have to agree on any interpretation, we just have to report how other people see it. --Art Carlson 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

(modern)

What is the technical difference between modern geocentrism and regular (classic?) geocentrism? I do not understand why they deserve different articles. The only difference between the theories is context. Jhalkompwdr 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism is a reaction to a scientific theory that is percieved as contrary to religious mores. Classical geocentrism was a working scientific theory. The former subject is an analysis of a facet of modern culture while the latter is more in the topic of history of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.187 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Physics expert requested on Gammay Ray Bursters and Red Shift

I tagged the Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations with {{Expert-subject|Physics}} because the first two subsections may be out of date or otherwise incorrect:

• The Gamma Ray Bursts section quotes Katz's 2002 book claiming GRBs are found in a spherical shell and that therefore a dilemma exists - have recent GRB findings shown this is no longer so? Our article on GRBs makes no mention and recent GRBs would seem to contradict this. If so the section should be rewritten in the past tense.

  This is still correct because GRBs are at cosmological distances. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Quantization of redshifts section makes claims that redshifts were observed to be quantized. Were they so observed, and if so, in which years and how much consensus was there? The section, which by the way needs citing througout, refers to studies, statistical methods, supporters and a minority of scientists, all unnamed. Can any flesh be put on these bones, and maybe the section improved to describe the state of science or belief at a particular time?

-Wikianon 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is almost zero consensus for redshift quantization beyond a trace due to large-scale structure. The only hold-outs are crumbums angry at the Big Bang. No one takes them seriously in the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If GRBs are at cosmological distances, then the amount of energy in the original bursts become extremely and unbelievably high.

Extreme - beyond a doubt. Unbelievable - not. The current consensus is that the power is tightly beamed, so the total power is dramatically lower than if you assume isotropy. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of those "crunbums" include Halton Arp. Who is the "community"? Establishment US big bang cosmologists? Arp is working in Germany. He is unable to work in the US. What does that mean?

It seems reasonable to use "community" and "establishment" as roughly synonymous. There is no country in the world whose cosmology establishment (if they have one) seriously doubts the Big Bang, so it has nothing to do with the US. I work in the same institute as Halton Arp, and I haven't heard a peep of doubt of the Big Bang. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyattmj (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Universal rotation

According to the first sentence, geocentrism is the belief that the earth neither moves nor rotates. For this to be true, the observed universe would have to rotate about the earth once every 24 hours, which implies some tremendous centripetal forces in action - or is there something implied in the term "inertial reference frame" that I'm missing? If so, it should be explained. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are "tremendous centripetal forces". They are produced by gravitomagnetism. This is mentioned in the section Modern geocentrism#"The inertial frame is the only special rotation.". Do you think we need to go into more detail here? Or should the reader rather go to the gravitomagnetism article for details? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Forms of modern geocentrism

This section is rather weak on saying who believes which form.

What exactly does Gerardus Bouw, for example, espouse? It sometimes sounds like he agrees with mainstream scientists that neither geocentricity nor acentricity is falsifiable. If that is the case, then we would need to add another subsection for that "Form of modern geocentrism". If there is a significant number of modern geocentrists that accept modern cosmology, in particular regarding the size of the universe, would we then need to mention the problem that events we observe billions of light years away must have happened billions of years ago? (This does not contradict geocentrism per se, but does contradict the usually concurrent belief in a young Earth.)

User:Mroam helpfully found a reference (here) for the category "Geocentrism based on a radically different cosmology". But it makes me wonder if this source and this form of modern geocentrism are notable. Does Marshall Hall have any following? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art Carlson (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel Star of the Unborn

AnonMoos proposed this edit:

In Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel Star of the Unborn, it is said that future science will have determined that Earth has a special status as the "Infinitely Mobile Central Point of All Conceivable Orbits".

He makes the same proposal about once a year. I first removed it with the edit summary "Removed reference to fiction that doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article", which I still stand by. I am reverting the change again, but am welcome to listen to the arguments of any editors who think it belongs here (or hear support from those who don't). --Art Carlson (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Geocentrism

I'm interested in knowing any modern sources regarding catholic geocentrism. I've never heard any catholic priest state that the earth is the center of the universe, and I can't help but wonder if that part of the article is attempting to single out the catholic faith (I honestly hope I'm wrong).

Punga 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Until about 1500 A.D., western Christianity was Catholicism. After 1500 A.D., Protestantism became distinct from Catholicism, but most of the high-profile religious pronouncements or incidents over challenges to geocentrism involved Catholic authorities (though there were certainly prominent Protestant geocentrists also, during the first few centuries). AnonMoos 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Catholics believe in geocentrism, including the Kolbe Center (Catholic Creation organization), John Salza (An author, who also runs ScriptureCatholic.com), and Robert Sungenis. --72.80.42.210 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section should focus solely on the small minority of catholics who believe in it now, and not the history of the catholic church regarding Galileo (which is the central point now), as the subject of the article is modern geocentrism. I've also removed the statement about papal infallibility, as it appeared based on common misconceptions. --NEMT (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

General relativity?

The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special. The frame in which Sun is at rest or Sun is moving with a constant velocity are equivalent. Juggling sun around earth produces a load of systemic forces... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.49.127 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct. Please read the whole article including the section called "The inertial frame is the only special rotation.", then try to understand the basics of gravitomagnetism. If you are still confused after that, you are welcome to come back with your questions (at least to the extent that they may help improve the article). --Art Carlson (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special.

I question whether the geocentric frame is an accelerated one. It seems to me that saying it's an accelerated frame presupposes that the Earth is rotating, which geocentrism denies. If we say something is not in motion, that it's the only thing in the universe that's at rest, how can it be an accelerated frame? It's actually the only non-accelerated frame, and hence the only inertial frame.

^The text above here is not mine.^ The problem I have with this article is that it plays along with the now also outdated notion that the sun is in a special position.

This belief is directly opposed to scientific evidence that the Sun is essentially the gravitational center of the solar system, and that the location of the Earth is not privileged.

Geocentrism, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the gravitational center of anything. This article as currently written seems to me to be structured as a tidy example of how the Christians got it wrong and in being so structured it misses out on a true opportunity to give the up-to-date information to the reader, that in fact there is no center of the universe. There are NO issues that relate to the earth centered view that do not also relate to the sun centered view. The sun also rotates and revolves, and neither is its surface an inertial reference frame. So we really need to move this article into the present day, not only in the technical details in the lower paragraphs but also in the first paragraph.--PhysicsIsh (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Astrology

... is for some reason entirely missing from the article, even though geocentrism is one of it's main foundations. Lunus (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? (I thought astrology was not rational enough to have any foundations.) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Winkelmann - Geheimnis der Talismane und Amulette, Dr. Musallam (Franz Sättler) - Astrologie. Then there's a few sources in Horoscope and Astrology. All of these use geocentrism as the base of astrology - some of them view it as entirely equal to heliocentrism (among them the two books I've listed), others limit it to astrology. I know of no modern sources that hold it to be superior to heliocentrism for general use, though, so I'm not quite sure whether to include it in the article. Lunus (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I suspect that WP:WEIGHT arguments will prevent more than a brief mention of astrology, but that mention might improve the completeness of the coverage and suggest further connections to the interested reader. Can you say anything about the prominence of these two authors within astrology? (There are probably more books on astrology on the market than sand on the beach.) When were they published? Do they consider it incidental, since you only need the relative positions of the planets and fixed stars to calculate a horoscope, or do they consider it important and deep? A Google search on "geocentrism astrology" gave me 112,000 hits, so there might be something there. (Or is a mere 112,000 as good as zero nowadays?) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous

What it seems to me is that these supposedly "geocentrist" physicists are trying to fit the more general theories into something that lies somewhere in between in order to prove "geocentrism". Of course you can consider the Earth as your frame of reference and solve the equations from there, adding or subtracting correction terms in order to make it fit the known observable data. But this is incredibly bad science. This should be said specifically in the article. Earth's position in the universe isn't (or shouldn't be considered) privileged from the start just out of dogmatic belief. You can do so , but you are just trying to please yourself and your religious beliefs. Talk about bad science. This modern geocentrism movement is of the same kind as all those intelligent design/creationist mambo-jambo pseudo-scientific arguments we see sprouting from the more bigot every now and then --193.136.74.102 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

also, it seems that what is said about the coriolis and centrifugal forces is incorrect. if you use the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian)formulation of the equations of motion for someone standing on the surface of the planet, you don't need the so-called "fictitious" forces (Coriolis, etc) - as the two terms (coriolis and centrifugal) will elegantly appear as you solve the equations (see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-74572.html ), and yet you still need to consider rotation. Finally the coriolis effect is observable directly on the surface of this planet which is immediate evidence for its rotation. Using arguments arising from gravitomagnetism is obscure and far-fetched. The explanation given in the text is unclear... can anyone prove this mathematically? if so give out the results. --193.136.74.102 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Anachronism

The current text of the article says, "Paul V ... ratified ... 1633 ...condemation of Galileo ...". Pope Paul V died in 1621 and cannot have ratified anything produced in 1633. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.173.23 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Overview of modern geocentrism

I've reworded the second bullet point because I felt it was rather too rich in words like "supposedly" to be truly NPOV. Also I've attempted to make it a little clearer. Hopefully I have maintained the semantics of the section. SheffieldSteel 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is not neutral at all. It is clearly biased in favour of the point of view that the bible is not geocentric. A neutral point of view would come to the conclusion that the bible is geocentric. I think this section was written by someone desperate to show that a literal reading of the bible does not contradict reality when it clearly does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myron Mumbles (talk • contribs) 07:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The relativistic falsification of geostatism and geocentrism

In its section 'Non-falsifiability of geocentrism' the article currently claims:

"If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone."

However, whilst a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen nor rejected on the grounds of kinematics alone, contrary to the article's claim that according to GTR 'a preferred coordinate system cannot be rejected on the grounds of physics alone', the 'non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile centre of a non-inertial universe' can and must be rejected on the grounds of relativity physics alone. This is because in that frame in which all the stars orbit the Earth daily, then except for the Sun, they would all exceed the speed of light in their daily orbit. For example, even the very nearest star (system), Alpha Centauri, must travel almost 10,000 times faster than light in that frame. Hence that particular reference frame must be rejected solely on the basis of the postulate of relativity physics that nothing can possibly travel faster than light. (And thus it would also seem that SR and GTR are mutually inconsistent. If GTR is true then SR is false, and vice versa)

In addition to ruling out geostatic reference frames, relativity theory also rules out geocentric frames since their attribution of 6 monthly stellar parallax to stellar motion rather than to Earth's annual solar orbit also entails that motion must exceed the speed of light.

Consequently the Wikipedia claim made is FALSE !

And it is also UNSOURCED. I therefore flag it to request the provision of 'reliable' sources that verify this patently mistaken claim. --Logicus (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got the physics wrong, but I agree a good reference at this point would be helpful. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Please explain why you think I got the physics wrong. And especially note the article also claims: "Similarly, [in geocentrism] Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours." Do you also claim that gets the physics wrong ? --Logicus (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article also claims "A belief commonly associated with [modern geocentrism] is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate. (Similarly, Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours.)"

So surely on your analysis this unsourced claim about Neptune, and implicitly also about the stars, must also be mistaken ?

I therefore flag them to request sources for these Wikipedia claims. Can you provide such ?--Logicus (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a trivial point, and I really wish we had some better sources to explain it. You might find it enlightening to look through the archives, especially Talk:Modern_geocentrism/archive3#As a scientific theory, is geocentrism meaningless or wrong? and the 3 sections following that. This was back when I was struggling with the concept myself. General relativity is not my specialty, but I have a Ph.D. in physics, so I do understand a bit. Also make sure you understand Mach's principle, frame dragging, and gravitomagnetism.

If a model of a phenomenon really is inconsistent with special relativity, then it is possible to formulate a paradox that violates causality, for example, by sending information faster than light and therefore, is some frame of reference, into the past. In the case of planets and stars rotating with superluminal velocity, this is not possible. It is analogous to the fact that due to the Big Bang, points in space sufficiently far apart are moving away from each other faster than light.

You are perfectly correct that these arguments invalidate the statement in the article about Neptune (which in addition doesn't fit where it was placed). I will delete it post haste.

--Art Carlson (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Whether or not their physics is mistaken, if you would be so kind as to bear with me, I am reverting your removal of the claims of modern geocentrism about reduced stellar and Neptune distances just because this is overhasty removal of their citation request flags. I suspect what the article really means to claim is that modern geocentrists do reduce their distances because they claim their superluminal speeds are ruled out by some posit of relativity theory that nothing can travel faster than light, whether or not they are mistaken in this view. Hence I think much more time should be allowed to give people the opportunity to provide a source in the modern geocentrist literature for this claim. It is surely of interest whether they do claim such, irrespective of whether their physics is mistaken.

As for your attempts to explain why the physics is mistaken in your view, I’m afraid I find it unilluminating, as I also found the archive section you kindly referred me to.

In the first instance rather than trying to teach me physics, could you please perhaps just start by saying simply whether you think GTR permits or rules out reference frames in which some objects travel faster than the speed of light ? Yes or No ? --Logicus (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were concerned that the article is inconsistent, but I have no problem leaving as is for a while. It might help our dialog if you could tell me a little about your background. Interested layman? Bachelors degree in another science? Graduate degree in physics? Does GTR permit reference frames in which some objects travel faster than the speed of light? Yes. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference to back up my Big Bang example. Article Faster-than-light#Universal expansion states "The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, .... Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates". The source given is this, which states "With the correct interpretation of the variables, the Hubble law (v = HD) is true for all values of D, even very large ones which give v > c." The source (which is without a doubt reliable) goes on to explain in detail what the "correct interpretation" is. The physics is not easy to follow, so for our purposes we will have to be content with the conclusion of the expert. I'll try to find an equally good source for the statement about rotating coordinate systems. One thing you might think about, the local inertial reference frame near a rotating body rotates a little bit with that body due to frame dragging. Consequently, the "problem" with distant objects moving faster than light is not limited to the geostationary reference frame, but also to the inertial reference frame near the Earth. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Thanks for this. But was it not you who introduced this stuff about the stars and Neptune being nearer on 17 December 2004 ? Also see 'Nashpur to Logicus' comments on my User Talk:Logicus page. More later when I digest this....--Logicus (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the stuff about the stars (a pity I didn't note my sources at the time), but somebody else put in the Neptune business. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Carlson: Thanks. So does that mean you found some modern geocentrist source that regarded the geostatic frame as refuted by some relativity theory ban on superluminal speed, and so removed this refutation by making the stars much closer, preumably not much further than Uranus ? Is this what that sentence means in effect ?--Logicus (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what I read or meant to imply. I think the motivation for these geocentrists is much less subtle and is more like an attraction to an archaic world model, but I never really understood where it came from. Even without the relativity argument under discussion, YECs have a problem with the size of of the universe. The observation of a supernova more than 6000 light years away would imply that God created light waves suggesting an event that never occurred (Omphalos hypothesis). --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: Thanks. In relation to the issue of whether geostatism is ruled out by GTR, my posting on the Talk:Faster-than-light page today - A counter-example to GR ? - may interest you, as may Nashpur's analogous point about comets made in the article itself yesterday. --Logicus (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To the above, the math is pretty close. Proxima Centauri would have to travel 9,600 times the speed of light to orbit the earth (4.218 ly away) in 24 hours. --King Öomie 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Biblical references section

This section, particularly with this recent edit, is much too long, and entails too much OR (and/or is unsourced) and POV ("Geocentrists tend to be careless or sloppy", "The problem with this interpretation, is ..."). Somebody needs to come through with a machete. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. New014 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree also It reeks of being written by biblical apologists who are desperate to explain away passages that very clearly would imply geocentrism when taken literaly. If they take the bible literally enough to deny evolution and to believe the earth is only a few thousands of years old than they should really except that applying the same literalism would imply a geocentric universe.--Myron Mumbles (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Relativity

The theory of the above says that both the Earth and the Sun have no privileged status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.171 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Dougweller and Aunt Entropy remove any reference to the theory of relativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.171 (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what you're talking about. --King Öomie 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Geocentrism most common among American Protestants?

“This belief is often based on Biblical verses and is most common among American Protestants.”

I believe that this claim found in the first paragraph of the article should be cited. If it can’t, then it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.162.199 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On a similar thread the Gallup poll line is out of context. "Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s have found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth." The source only indicates one poll, not polls. it was done in 1999 and it did not test that the respondents "hold" that the sun orbits the earth, just that they responded as such. They were testing for general knowledge rather than asking if it is a held belief. --98.204.178.238 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to this is ridiculous

It is NOT bad science to say that a there is no preferred frame of reference in General Relativity. As for geocentrism, it is very close to the frame of reference that we use every day. Any other frame of reference is just as valid, so there's nothing special about an Earth-centric reference frame, except that it is useful to us (when you walk down the street, do you worry about the fact that both you and your destination moves 30km every second relative to the Sun?). There is nothing special about a Sun-centered or fixed star centered or a center of the galaxy centered or any other frame, either. If Einstein was right, and there's considerable evidence backing up General Relativity, then there is no experiment that can distinguish among "the Earth orbits the Sun and rotates once per day" and "the Earth doesn't rotate but the entire universe, including the Sun, orbits the Earth once per day." This does not require any "correction terms" and there is no "in between" theory involved. You just transform Einstein's differential equations from one set of coordinates to the other. All of the forces, linear and rotational, emerge from the solution to the Einstein equations exactly as needed when you switch the reference frames to make it impossible to distinguish one from the other.

My relativity books are in storage, but Born's Einstein's Theory of Relativity is the clearest popular book that discusses this, and any standard General Relativity textbook goes into great detail. When I can dig them out, I'll add some math that explains this, but I think we ought to be able to make a clear qualitative statement about this that laymen can understand. "Relativity" means that no reference frame is favored over another. That is only true for non-accelerating frames in Special Relativity, but in General Relativity it is true for accelerating reference frames (including rotating frames), too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.134.75 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between frames of reference even in General Relativity (GR). Only inertial frames (those that experience no forces acting on them) are fuly equivalent to each other. The geocentric view is NOT referring to an inertial frame, as the earth is constantly under the effect of the sun's gravitational force. This steady tangential (to the orbit) force causes the orbit to be circular/elliptical. The "heliocentric" view is truly inertial when reffering to the solar system (well, neglecting the sun orbiting the core of our galaxy and some other things that have no effect inside our solar system), as the sun's mass is big enough that the experienced gravitational acceleration through the planets is neglegible. Geocentrism is not a "valid" frame of reference, as it is not inertial. 88.130.81.166 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Phrasing of intro suggests "Americans are stupid" POV

"In a poll conducted by Gallup in 1999, 18% of Americans said that they believe the Sun orbits the Earth. In two polls conducted in 1996, 16% of Germans,and 19% of Britons responded that they also believe the Sun orbits the Earth.[1]"

This would be better phrased as a single sentence, I think, in descending order of population percentage (19% of Britons, 18% of Americans, 16% of Germans), to avoid any implication that one of the countries in particular is less educated than others. Agreed? 98.217.75.153 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what the figure was elsewhere, say in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and China. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent newspaper article

"A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong" by Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune August 27, 2011 -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this whole article suspect

I've never met a proponent of geocentrism in my life, including in fundamentalist churches, and yet this article makes it sound downright COMMON. It contains almost no quotes from any individuals who actually seem to have any following, and trying to get a handle on how big of a phenomenon this is is almost impossible from the article. Carlo (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This article is about a belief wholly rejected by modern science, and it states that very clearly. Just because the article exists and in detail does not imply anything one way or another about the factual accuracy of the theories it describes. Is there a danger of Wikipedia presenting Geocentrism as anything other than what most of the world believes is pseudoscience? I hardly think so (especially with the disastrous current state of the article). In terms of getting raw numbers of living geocentrists for the sake of perspective, maybe that would have some benefit. I know I'm certainly curious. But I think most people can infer from this article (not to mention what they were taught in kindergarten) that it is a relatively niche belief, even among theists. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Do the poll results cited in the intro indicate belief in geocentrism, or mere scientific ignorance? I mean, did the respondents say that some religious teaching informed their view? What was the exact phrasing of the question, and its context? Did a YES answer correlate with belief in any particular form or Creationism? Were they asked, "Are you a Young Earth Creationist?"

Without answering these questions, it could be people who simply think in terms of "the Sun rises and sets every day", i.e., goes around the sky daily. These could be non-Creationists just as easily as Creationists.

Note carefully: I am not making an argument; these are not rhetorical (point-scoring) questions. I want answers, so I can improve the article. A lone sentence about the poll in the intro, which is not mentioned later in the body, is an editorial problem. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This poll is about belief/confusion that the Sun goes around the Earth. This article is about geocentrism, the belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. The poll is off-topic and does not belong in this article. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This is great, we actually agree on something! I guess you're relentless efforts to educate me in the True Wiki Way are paying off. :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Discussing about this article is "suspect" I would like to point out that there is NO article called "modern heliocentrism"... is it because everyone gives for granted that the Sun is at the center of the universe instead? Think about it very carefully... The Andromeda Galaxy is predicted to collide with our Milky Way galaxy in approximately in 4 million years. Where is the center of the galaxy-universes here? In the midpoint between Andromeda and the Milky Way? Last but not least according to the current Big Bang cosmology the metric expansion of space implies the "increase of distance with time between distant parts of the universe". So where is the center exactly? The article History of the Center of the Universe states that this is a concept that lacks a coherent definition within modern Astronomy. Hmm... Maybe because there is still lots of confusion for the Solar System, Galaxy, and Big Bang cosmology concepts? Duh! Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Status

I don't think this article warrants deletion, though it is a mess and could use a lot of cleanup. I've put a detailed argument on the deletion request page, but in short I believe the topic of modern geocentrism, at least, adequately adheres to Wikipedia's policies. It's notable and culturally relevant, and the page is clearly not in support of the beliefs. I rewrote the intro and maybe I'll make some more edits later to get things a bit more concise, cited, and neutral. With its weight and notability considered, edits should be made realizing that the article is about a fringe theory, and that it should be about the belief, not a soapbox for or against it. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 01:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Einstein Himself on The Two Major Universe Models, and Article Bias Issues

Not sure if 88.130.81.166 (in the "this is ridiculous" thread) thinks he knows more than Einstein about General Relativity, but here it is straight from the horse's mouth (Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p. 212 (248 in 1938 ed)):

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system 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 coordinate systems." Major figures in cosmology, physics, and astronomy (Albert Einstein, Max Born, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Fred Hoyle, among others) are in agreement that there is no scientific way to prove either model over the other, nor any non-philosophical/theological justification for doing so, SPECIFICALLY in the context of General Relativity.

I removed a comment I posted before. After examining the article in more detail, it actually appears to be biased in FAVOR of geocentrism, and quite lengthy in many areas where it should be much more concise. I apologize for not having read it more thoroughly before posting. I completely agree with where the criticism of this article is coming from. Having the arguments of modern geocentrism is fine, along with how the standard model addresses them or not, etc. but it shouldn't be a dissertation that appears to wholly support one view or the other. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)