Orthodox and geocentrism, flat-earthism, etc.

[jgress]

Top astronomers claim that geocentrism can also account for the facts? I'd be interested to see that.

[Maria]

Top astronomers claim that geocentrism can also account for the facts? I'd be interested to see that.

Moi aussi.

[Matthew]

Hello, here are a few quotes. The text I read was huge and trying to go back for about 20 minutes in the text to fish out the mind blowing admissions of modern scientists was hard to do. So I will leave in the bits I managed to find (which were not the quotes I really wanted to share for you as a starting point. But once I realised it was going to take a whole day to really properly put such a collection of perspective altering quotes together I decided to see if someone hadn't already done something like that in a nice concise package. I did not find that (admittedly I did not spend a whole lot of time searching) but I did find a short and good starter article posted very recently on a blog this past August that opens with a quote from Hawking which is more akin to the caliber of what I was talking about. Here it is...and I have decided to leave it the bits I mentioned from my initial search at the end of this article.

SUNDAY, AUGUST 26, 2012

Let's put geocentrism into textbooks
“So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest.” — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

"I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.” — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer, http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... seriously/

Note on the second quote: Mr. Plait is referring to geocentrism with a “little g,” not Geocentrism with a “big G.” The whole lesson from his article is that the geocentric frame is just as valid (geocentrism with a little g) as the heliocentric frame, as long as you don’t claim it’s the absolute frame (meaning Geocentrism, with a big G), as in the following quote from the same Plait article: “That’s where Geocentrism trips up. Note the upper case G there; I use that to distinguish it from little-g geocentrism, which is just another frame of reference among many. Capital-G Geocentrism is the belief that geocentrism is the only frame, the real one.”

Also note that throughout this article, I am talking about geocentrism with a little g, as Mr. Plait puts it.

Clearly, most modern scientists discretely acknowledge that the geocentric frame is just as valid as the heliocentric one. The only objection that can be made against the geocentric frame is that it cannot, according to relativity, be chosen as THE frame, the absolute frame. The honest scientist must proclaim that he is neither a geocentrist nor a heliocentrist. He can be either. There is no one correct frame; rather, there is a multitude of equally correct reference frames, and we can choose among them, so long as we don’t claim that any particular one is absolute. This MUST be the modern scientist’s perspective on the subject of geocentric versus heliocentric.

Why, then, does every science textbook present the heliocentric view as if it were the “correct” frame? The way astronomy is currently taught in the textbooks should, in the spirit of Mr. Phil Plait, be called Heliocentrism, with a big H. And please, let’s not quibble that the textbooks don’t present a sun-centered frame, but rather one where the planets orbit the sun, which orbits the center of the galaxy, which orbits the center of the local cluster, etc. The fact is that schools teach the model where the planets orbit the sun as if it were THE one true reference frame. Why? Why is the heliocentric model the one presented to school children? If the geocentric frame is just as valid as the heliocentric, why not present the geocentric model in textbooks, rather than the heliocentric?

Could it be that scientists don’t want children “getting it into their heads” that the geocentric perspective is just as valid as the heliocentric, and that in fact, despite claims to the contrary, it has never been proven that the Copernican (heliocentric) model is correct and the Ptolemic (geocentric) model wrong?

The fact, undeniable by anyone who believes in relativity, is that there is no way to prove that either model is correct, and that whether the sun goes around the Earth or the Earth around the sun is merely a matter of perspective, with nothing more involved than a shift in coordinates.

Why, again why, is the model where the planets orbit the sun presented as the “correct” view in modern textbooks, when, according to Stephen Hawking and any honest scientist, there IS no “correct” view?

How do you think these honest scientists would react if someone were to insist upon swapping the heliocentric model in the textbooks with the geocentric? Let’s swap the models, and even allow the disclaimer that the model presented is merely one among countless alternatives, all equally correct? (Do most modern textbooks present such a disclaimer alongside the heliocentric model taught in the textbook? I don’t know, but I doubt it).

How do you think people would react if such a demand were made?

“Crackpot!”

But there is nothing at all crackpot about the idea of swapping out the models. If, as scientists MUST admit, and have admitted very quietly, both models are valid, then they should have no problem teaching one model over the other.

Teachers might object on the grounds that teaching the geocentric model would open up a can of worms they don’t want to have to get into. If they’re just trying to teach a basic model of the solar system, they don’t want to have to get into a discussion of relativity to explain why the model being presented is just one of many equally correct models.

But if the above objection is raised, then you would have to raise it regardless of the model being taught. So, then: is the disclaimer that the model used is merely a matter of perspective not being added to the textbooks or lectures? If not, then, in effect, students are being taught that it’s a matter of fact that the heliocentric model is the one true, “correct” reference frame. Which would explain idiotic comments like, “If the Earth didn’t orbit the sun, we would never have been able to go to the Moon.” And yes, I have heard this precise comment numerous times, as if the fact that we went to the Moon disproves the geocentric model.

The only possible reason scientists might not want the geocentric model presented in textbooks, rather than the heliocentric, is that they don’t want people to realize that it is, in fact, just as valid to say that the sun orbits the Earth as that the Earth orbits the sun. They don’t want such a model presented, because it’s a slippery slope that leads to claiming that the geocentric frame is the absolute frame. And God, yes God, forbid, we don’t want the public sliding down that slope, back into the Dark Ages.

And one more note: the textbooks I’ve encountered do teach that the Copernican model won out over the Ptolemaic model. And this is absolutely correct. But just because one model “won out” over another doesn’t mean that one model was proven correct and the other incorrect.

So how about it? Since Hawking, Plait, and all honest scientists acknowledge that the geocentric (with a little g) viewpoint is just as valid as the heliocentric, then in all textbooks, let’s present the geocentric view in all discussions of the solar system. How could any scientist object to such a thing? After all, it’s all just a matter of perspective.

Here's my whole point: most scientists, while relativity requires them to admit that geocentrism (with a little g) is perfectly valid, it actually bothers them to have to make such an admission. I suspect most scientists would cringe at the idea that a child's first exposure to the solar system might be through a geocentric model rather than a heliocentric. I suspect such a thing would be fought tooth and nail.

As Albert Einstein himself once admitted, reliance on the doctrine of Copernicus is not nearly as strong as we were once led to believe:
Since the time of Copernicus we have known that the Earth rotates on its axis and moves around the sun. Even this simple idea, so clear to everyone, was not left untouched by the advance of science. But let us leave this question for the time being and accept Copernicus’ point of view.2
Modern science has, indeed, been very happy to follow Einstein’s prescription to “accept Copernicus’ point of view” even though it has been made very clear that “the advance of science” has revealed it is an unprovable assumption. As one of Einstein’s staunch supporters and a much admired physicist in his own right, Sir Arthur Eddington, admitted about the question: Which is right?....Or are both the victims of illusion?....No one knows which is right. No one will ever know, because we can never find out which, if either, is truly at rest in the aether.
Accordingly, Eddington astutely reasoned from the principles of modern science already known:
The bulge of the Earth’s equator may be attributed indifferently to the Earth’s rotation or to the outward pull of the centrifugal force introduced when the Earth is regarded as non-rotating.3
A very famous experiment took place in 1887 to answer the above question – the Michelson-Morley experiment. The results were shocking to say the least. Based on the then current science, the experiment demonstrated the Earth wasn’t moving through space. In a book endorsed by Einstein, theoretical physicist James Coleman admitted that:
....The easiest explanation was that the earth was fixed in the ether and that everything else in the universe moved with respect to the earth and the ether....Such an idea was not considered seriously, since it would mean in effect that our earth occupied the omnipotent position in the universe, with all
the other heavenly bodies paying homage
by moving around it.4
Lincoln Barnett says much the same:
The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion. To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected. The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.5

The data were almost unbelievable... There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest.”
Bernard Jaffe21 (Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. Jaffe adds this conclusion to the above sentence: “This, of course, was preposterous.”

“...nor has any physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion.”
Lincoln Barnett22
22 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.

If Earth is in the center of the universe, it means, with little argument from the science community, that Someone placed it there by design. Gould realized that fact better than anyone else. But with all due respect to Gould, it is not “arrogance” that leads one to see the Earth as the center of the universe. Rather, humility guides the human soul to recognize that there is Someone much higher than we Who has esteemed Earth so much that He put it in a most unique place in the universe to be the apple of His eye. Arrogance is on the side of those who would seek to remove that Someone from our immediate purview by throwing the Earth into the remote recesses of space. As Galileo historian Arthur Koestler concluded:
The notion of limitlessness or infinity, which the Copernican system implied, was bound to devour the space reserved forGod...This meant, among other things the end of intimacy between man and God. Homo sapiens had dwelt in a universe enveloped by divinity as by a womb; now he was being expelled from the womb. Hence Pascal’s cry of horror.37
Not far behind Gould’s sentiments is another science icon, Stephen Hawking:
[We have moved] from the revolutionary claim of Nicolaus Copernicus that the Earth orbits the sun to the equally revolutionary proposal of Albert Einstein that space and time are curved and warped by mass and energy. It is a compelling story because both Copernicus and Einstein have brought about profound changes in what we see as our position in the order of things. Gone is our privileged place at the center of the universe, gone are eternity and certainty, and gone are absolute space and time.38
So not only does science wish to remove Earth from the center, the demotion also dictates that thethings we have always held as reliable guideposts to our lives are suddenly torn away from us. An Earth set adrift will invariably make everything else relative and thus, as Hawking admits, will turn the notions of “certainty” and “absolutes” into mere figments of our imagination.

“We are unreconstructed geocentrists hiding behind a Copernican veneer.”
Carl Sagan201

[jgress]

I actually read that blog on Discovery magazine, and he doesn't say what you think he says. When he says that geocentrism, with a small g, is a "valid" frame of reference, he means that it is correct to say that the earth is stationary with respect to, e.g. the moon, or the people who walk on its surface. It's not correct to say that the earth is stationary with respect to the sun. Likewise, the sun is stationary with respect to the earth and planets, but not with respect to the rest of the galaxy.

Geocentrism with a big G, which you advocate, tries to argue that the earth is stationary with respect to the entire Universe. This is manifestly false on numerous grounds, and I urge you to read that blog to learn why. At any rate, it is disingenuous to claim that experts admit the "validity" of Geocentrism, since they are not claiming that the earth is stationary with respect to the rest of the Universe.

[Matthew]

Very good points, Jonathan. You may be entirely right. For me, this is a very interesting topic and worthy of study. Have you had a chance to read a bit from read the chapters of that book?

[Matthew]

Geocentrist Robert Sungenis poses this excellent question:

Mr. Plait: These are people who believe that the Earth is fixed in space, unmoving and unmovable, and the Universe literally revolves around it. Without exception, in my experience, these followers of Geocentrism believe in it due to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Finding passages in the Bible to support this belief isn’t hard; Genesis is loaded with them.
R. Sungenis: Actually, Genesis has very few. Most are in the Psalms. All in all, there are 12 different Old Testament books that teach the earth is motionless and that the sun revolves around the earth. Genesis 1 is distinguished for the fact that the first chapter says the earth was created three days before the sun, stars and moon. As such, since, as Genesis 1:5 says, there was already evening and morning before the sun was created, then the logical question for heliocentrists is when did the earth begin to move, and from whence comes the idea that it is the rotation of the earth that causes the day and night? Genesis 1:3 insists there was a separate and original light that caused the day and night. So how could God have made the Earth to revolve around nothing but later put the sun in that place? Nothing makes sense if read from a heliocentric perspective.

But I think the real reason Mr. Plait’s made his assertion about Genesis being replete with verses on geocentrism was to tip off his Discover audience of agnostics that he is merely confronting religious devotees who, the implication goes, are a bit irrational when it comes to the Bible having to compete with modern science. Perhaps some religious people are irrational. But that is certainly not the case with me or my co-author, Dr. Robert Bennett, who wrote the book Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right. We approach this topic on scientific terms, for if the science does not support geocentrism I certainly would not waste my time, no matter how religiously devoted I was. What you will see in this short dialogue is that it is Mr. Plait who doesn’t understand his own science, and in my travels that is not as uncommon as you may think.

Indeed, Holy Writ, inspired by the Holy Spirit of Truth clearly states that the Earth pre-existed the Sun's creation. Kind of throws a spanner in the works, if holding to the heliocentrist and world in motion point of view. Things like this keep me biding my time and being open minded about Geocentrism (Big G).

[Matthew]

For Sungenis's full critique of the Plait article here is the link. It is very interesting and worth weighing his arguments.

http://galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswr ... ures/5.pdf