Author Topic: Earth at the Center of the Universe  (Read 41173 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #100 on: June 11, 2007, 11:10:58 PM »
Yes, I've been on a merry-go-round.
And to answer your question, my family that was watching me was correct in observing that it was the merry-go-round moving and not them.
Even when I'm on the merry-go-round I realize that I am moving.

I've also ridden in a car. And while I'm in the car and it appears the landscape is whizzing past me and I am stationary, I realize that I am in motion and the landscape is still.

So if you're arguing that the merry-go-round isn't actually moving but it just appears that way because the earth around it is moving, or that the car I'm traveling in isn't in motion, but standing still, and the Earth is whizzing past it, you're WRONG.

Earlier in this thread someone (it might have been you) used the example of putting a pool ball in motion around another stationary pool ball and then stipulated that it couldn't be proven mathematically which pool ball was in motion and which was stationary. Similarly, the example was given that someone swings a bucket around his head, is the bucket stationary and the swinger actually moving around the bucket ?

Einstein's theory of relativity infers that the moving pool ball or the swinging bucket (if these in-animate objects could think and speak) would say, "Hey, wait a minute, I'm standing still and you're moving." But an observer of either event would be able to see that in fact the bucket is being swung and is moving or that in fact it is only one pool ball that is moving.

Now, we humans on planet Earth would surely from our perspective say "Hey, wait a minute, we're standing still and the Sun is moving around us". We all see the sun rise in the east and set in the west, it has to be moving, right ? (even though this is due to the Earth rotating on it's axis, which i'm not sure if u believe or not. If you don't believe this, I'd like to know how you explain why we have day and night. Do you think the Sun orbits the Earth once a day? Because if the earth isn't rotating and it is the Sun in motion that would require the sun to complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours to account for day and night). So the appearance of the Sun moving around the Earth is our reality, but it is not the greater reality, despite your claims that either case is the scientific or mathematical truth. And the fact that it is the Earth orbiting the Sun can be and has been proven by objective observation, and the observation of such doesn't have to be from another universe to be valid and correct. 

That's the way relativity works regarding space.
Interestingly, relativity also applies to time, with similar, although different, ramifications.
But that's a discussion for another thread involving the age of the universe and the apparent discrepancy of modern science and the Torah on that matter.

Offline jdl4ever

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 2000
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #101 on: June 12, 2007, 12:42:29 AM »
Muck DeFuslims, your explanation is spot on.  Mathematically you can prove that a merry go round is moving in many ways even though it may appear to you that it is not moving if you are in it.  Mathematically you can prove which tennis ball is moving in a game of Tennis.  Mathematics and the sciences can prove anything regardless of how things might appear to laymen.  To some people, the planets looked like they were alive, so are you going to tell me that their opinion is valid since it is theoretically possible that when laymen look at the stars they look alive to them? Appearance means nothing without mathematical and scientific proof.  That's what these people don't get, that the number of theoretical possibilities based on a single observation has nothing to do with anything.  The one possibility that is proven mathematically and scientifically to be correct is valid and the ones that are disproven are not valid.  Similarly, relativity simply gives us possibilities based on simple observation of the sun at one point in time.  Maybe it is moving around us or we are moving around it or both are moving around each other. Mathematically we proved that we are going around the sun and disproved the other possibilities.

As for Lubav's Questions:

1.  Science itself says nothing about G-d and not one scientific paper dealt with this.  And the discoveries of Science is not biased one way or the other because of this in most cases.  Scientists simply record what happened based on mathematics and hard evidence.  It is not part of science to write why something happened.  For example, science has proven that there was a big bang that started creation.  Science does not talk about who caused it.  G-d believing scientists think that this was creation and G -d did it while the agnostic ones think that it somehow happened by itself (which to you and me doesn't make sense how they could think such a way).  If all the scientists were G-d fearing people, their discoveries would not have changed since science is based on hard evidence.  They would have still discovered that the Earth is billions of years old, that an evolutionary process has taken place, that water is a liquid that boils at 100 celcious, etc.  They would just think that G-d did all this.  They would say that evolution only proves that there is a G-d since it is mathematically impossible for evolution to happen randomly so they would call it intelligent design, and they would say that they are uncovering how G-d created the world.

2.  Science does make mistakes, but it is a self correcting process so these mistakes are almost always corrected.  If Lubab thinks that the earth is indeed only 6,000 years old, you are free to find hard mathematical evidence for your theory and write a well written scientific paper to prove this, and publish this paper in a scientific journal.  The Rebbe didn't do this since he did not have any evidence or good argument to offer.  The only time you will find mistakes in science is in recently discovered stuff since there is not a lot of evidence to support this recently discovered stuff.  Only when other scientists confirm the findings with experiments of their own does the theory become concrete.   Global warming is an example since it is a recent discovery.  And all Scientists don't agree with global warming, there is a significant minority that think it is bogus.  As for the Earth going around the Sun, it is a concrete theory that has been proven thousands of times over.  And are there are no (I repeat NO) respected scientists at all who think that the Earth does not go around the Sun. 

« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 01:05:28 AM by jdl4ever »
"Enough weeping and wailing; and the following of leaders & rabbis who are pygmies of little faith & less understanding."
"I believe very much in a nation beating their swords into plowshears but when my enemy has a sword I don't want a plowshear"
-Rabbi Meir Kahane Zs'l HYD

Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #102 on: June 12, 2007, 05:20:31 AM »
Scientists like Birkhoff, Burniston-Brown, Moon and Spencer, Mach, Nightingale, Rosser, Lense and Thirring, Bondi, Einstein, Barbour and Bertotti, Bouw etc etc showed how the outer reaches of the universe could not only be moving at many, many times the speed of light, but also how the universe would not fall apart even if it were rotating at trillions of times per second cf an electron circling an atomic nucleus! Relativity says that nothing can go faster than light, in a straight line. But rotational superluminal velocties are permitted. And nowhere does Relativity assign a value to c.

All of these physicists concluded that there is no detectable, experimental difference between having the Earth spin diurnally on an axis as well as orbiting the sun once a year, or having the universe rotate about the Earth once a day and possessing a wobble centered on the sun which carries the planets and stars about the Earth once a year www.geocentricity.com

In none of these models would the universe fly apart, nor would a stationary satellite fall to Earth. In every one of these models the astronauts on the moon would still see all sides of the Earth in the course of 24 hours, the Foucault Pendulum would still swing exactly the same way as we see it in museums, and the Earth's equator would still bulge. In other words, each of these effects is due to either the centrifugal force, the Coriolis force, or some combination of the two and can be totally explained in any geocentric model.

There is a vast body of solid scientific evidence supporting the Torah's 6000 year universe:

evidence such as the rate of decrease of the earth and sun's magnetic fields, the rate of decrease in the size of the solar disc, the high residual warmth of the moon and mere half-inch of dust on its surface (which amazed the Apollo astronauts who had been told to expect being swamped!), the decrease in the speed of light, the paucity of helium and micro-meteoric dust in the atmosphere, the rate of mineral deposition into the oceans, the fallacious premises of radiometric dating, the still "unwrapped" state of the arms of the great spiral galaxies, the thickness of Saturn's rings, the continued existence of short-term comets, human population statistics, the complete dearth of any human record or artifact older than 6000 years, polystrate fossils, the non-organic theory for the origin of oil, dendochronolgy, pleochroic haloes etc etc., all indicative of an astounding recency of creation.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 08:55:16 AM by Mifletzet »

Offline Lubab

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Master JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #103 on: June 12, 2007, 10:43:16 AM »
Yes, I've been on a merry-go-round.
And to answer your question, my family that was watching me was correct in observing that it was the merry-go-round moving and not them.
Even when I'm on the merry-go-round I realize that I am moving.

Muck let's just stop right there. If you think you can prove that your were moving and your family was not then there is no point in going on to other more complicated issues. This is the crux of what you need to understand.

Take this very comment you just wrote to me about the merry-go-round. Go to a physics professor or anyone who thoroughly understands the theory of relativity. Ask him the following: "Under the the theory of relativity is it possible to prove if you or your famliy was the one in motion".

Do this and get back to me with the response.  ;) Good Luck!

P.S. I really don't want to hear any more debate on this topic until someone has the intellecutal honesty to do this. Otherwise we are just wasting our time here.

P.P.S Also notice Muck how you got yourself into a bit of a pickle. On one hand you're insisting that in truth your family is still. In the same breath you're claiming the earth is revolving around the sun at super-speed. So under your frame of reference your family is not still at all. So think about that and reconsider if what you consider "still" and "moving" are absolute truths are do they just mean they appear to be "moving" or "still" relative to the other things in your view. But most importantly, go talk it over with an expert in relativity.  If you don't have one, I can help you get one.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 11:46:49 AM by lubab »
"It is not upon you to finish the work, nor are you free to desist from it." Rabbi Tarfon, Pirkei Avot.

Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #104 on: June 12, 2007, 06:29:53 PM »
"Most importantly: Can you explain to us please how the scientists go about proving whether the helio-centric or geocentric model is correct? Obviously they start measuring from a partcular focul point, right? How can they prove that their focul point is not also in motion?"

Whether the focal point is static or not has no bearing on the validity of the observation of the relative motion of two other independent bodies.

For example, it doesn't matter if a space probe is moving away from the Earth and Sun and observing the motion of those two celestial bodies relative to each other.

The probe will see the same thing regardless of whether it is stationary, getting closer to the Earth or moving farther away.

The probe would witness the same motion as it journeyed past Mars.

The probe would still be witnessing the same motion as it traversed past Jupiter.

The probe would still observe the same motion as it left the Solar System.

And what it would see and has seen is the Earth orbiting the Sun.

The denial on this issue is incredible.




Of course, everything but the last sentence is precisely correct. The last sentence is precisely wrong because we start this sequence of thoughts talking about the observation of RELATIVE motion of two independent bodies, but end up with an asserted observation of absolute motion. This result arrives because the receding probe's ultimate reference frame provided in the middle sentence (probe goes past mars, past Jupiter, leaves Solar System entirely) is a frame tied to the Sun, presupposing that point of reference. Even the term "solar system" belies a sun-centered reference frame being imposed implicitly -- and sometimes explicitly -- on the analysis.

The trajectory the probe takes determines what will appear on its video camera. If the probe leaves the Earth in a straight line from the surface outward, pointing its camera back at the 2-body system, it will record images of the Sun orbiting the Earth. If it leaves the Earth using conventional (and more energy efficient) insertion into space, the Sun will be generally localized as the point from which outward radial motion is determined by the probe.

Consider an observer on the Moon, which keeps one face toward the Earth in orbital phase lock. From the Moon, it appears that the Earth and Moon are not moving at all with respect to each other: the Earth hangs suspended in the lunar sky.  Any reference frame tied to the Moon will conclude that there IS no relative motion in the two-body case. The mystery then is why the two bodies don't gravitationally attract toward each other, given this perception. The lunar observer sees the rest of the cosmos in rotation around the Earth-Moon system, and the Einstein field equations have to be solved to determine the cosmic nontidal rotational gravitational field set up by the cosmos seen in rotation around this 2-body system. The terms in the equation correspond to the Newtonian centrifugal force, keeping the two bodies apart. But my point here is not to discuss the dynamics of that system but the observed kinematics: if you depart from this system on a probe leaving the Moon from a fixed point on its surface, traveling in a straight line outward from the Moon, the probe will record that the two bodies (Earth and Moon) have NO relative motion with respect to one another.  If the probe leaves from a fixed point on the EARTH in a straight line outward, it will see the moon in nearly diurnal rotation around the Earth.  If the probe starts at the SUN and records video images, it sees the Moon revolving around the earth approximately every four weeks.


Technically, no matter where the probe starts or what trajectory it takes, it gives a picture of relative motion, so long as the person interpreting the video recognizes the strong but subtle influence of his mental adoption of a preferred reference frame. As has been long known by mathematicians and physicists, any uniform two-body revolution, or single-body rotation, can be made to disappear by adopting a suitably chosen frame of reference. (E.g., the lunar observer seeing NO relative motion between the Moon and Earth.) What someone SHOULD say in reviewing video from the probe you describe is NOT that the Earth revolves around the Sun (which is an artifact arising out of the choice of trajectory) but rather that the Earth and Sun are in relative motion with respect to each other. The decision as to which body is actually moving cannot be made if we're to make good on the assertion of true relativity of motion (i.e., that we accept the covariance of Einstein's field equations in all particulars).  If someone WERE to have launched a probe in a straight line away from a fixed point on the Earth's surface and returned video feeds (which would all show the Earth dead-center in the field of view at all times), you'd object that the trajectory has been chosen in such a way that it conspires to hide the Earth's motion, since the probe now shares in that alleged motion.  But, of course, you've merely assumed what you set out to prove. You want to lull the reader into a dull sense of inattentiveness to hidden presuppositions and precontemplative commitments concerning a background reference frame into which the entire system is to be set, and against which motion is to be determined. Neither probe, technically, returns neutral information -- a probe is always in its own reference frame, which has relationships to other frames (the Earth's, the Sun's, etc.).  Those relationships determine what is recorded by its video camera, since those relationships determine the positions of the objects being photographed.


The whole point of Einstein's model was to provide a physical rationale for taking all motion to be relative. Under his model, the Earth can be taken as stationary, and the rest of the universe can describe a diurnal rotation around it. Einstein showed how the laws of physics make such a scenario indistinguishable from the Copernican system. They're on an equal footing when Einstein's in the house. Your assumption that the frame of the probe's camera is normative reflects the bald importation of positional bias by, effectively, sleight of hand. The reader has been subtly maneuvered, in the course of your brief analysis, from relative to absolute motion.  Like frogs who don't recognize increasingly hotter water, the conclusion ends up in a place unjustified by the starting axioms.  In short, the analysis is inconsistent, both with itself, and with reality.

There is always a temptation to invite the reader to "stand outside the system and look at it," but the standpoint from which this evaluation is made is ITSELF a reference frame with specific relationships to the frames being examined. There is NO way to filter this circumstance out -- but it is routinely neglected, which falsifies the assessments based thereon.  Your analysis is a textbook case of playing "hide the implied reference frame."

You can come out now -- the game's over.





« Last Edit: June 12, 2007, 06:32:03 PM by Mifletzet »

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #105 on: June 12, 2007, 10:26:49 PM »
The game is over.
 
You're now explaining day and night on Earth by claiming the entire universe is orbiting around the Earth once every 24 hours.

It's pointless continuing this thread if that's what you believe.

Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2007, 12:46:28 PM »
In that case, it'd be equally pointless for you to subscribe to refereed, respected journals like Physical Review D, or Gravitation and General Relativity, where precisely such questions are dealt with (in a way favorable to my thesis, and equally fatal to your apparent denial of such possibilities).

Since you didn't make it clear precisely WHY you think the thesis is pointless, I'll cover all possibilities: (1) You object in general to cosmic rotation as if the topic was absent from the secular refereed literature on the topic, (2) You object to my discussion of the lunar-based observer seeing zero relative motion between Earth and Moon and having to incorporate the contribution of the rotating cosmic mass he observes in solving Einstein's field equations to see where the force resides to prevent the two bodies from moving toward one another, or (3) You believe any such rotation violates the law that physical objects can't travel faster than the speed of light, and a diurnal rotation would compel such superluminal rotation out around the orbit of Saturn. Everything farther out would be moving even faster than c.  So, we'll handle these possible objections seriatim.


Regarding (1) -- Consult the work done by secular scientist Yuri Obukhov since 1989. His was one of the major contributions to the Colloquium on Cosmic Rotation, the proceedings of which were published in Berlin in 2000. If you consult the Citebase reference for just ONE of his articles, you'll find (in this instance) 440 references, the vast majority of which deal with the issue of a rotating cosmos:


http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0008106


Note that a Goedel-type universe is a rotating cosmos.  Note also that not a single geocentrist is lurking in these citations. Claims
that modern science turns its back on a rotating cosmos are simply wrong -- the literature is rife with scientific activity directed to this issue.  Scratch the surface a bit more, and you'll find an embarrassment of riches in this area of secular scholarship.  But
wave a dismissive hand and say there's not a shred of scientific evidence in regard to the matter, and it will surely be true that SOMEBODY is turning their back on the evidence.


Is the evidence properly correlated? That's a different issue. Obukhov has pointed out (in refereed journals, no less) that "cosmic rotation can, in principle, be quite large"; he spends most of his time debunking faulty objections to cosmic rotation, and doing an
excellent job of it. Most intriguingly, he has pointed out that the Birch anisotropy is not a consequence of cosmic rotation -- and then proceeded to illustrate what effects DO arise from cosmic rotation. (The Birch papers appear in the reference list in the URL provided above.)


Obukhov's article in the February 1991 issue of General Relativity & Gravitation won the third award from the Gravity Research Foundation in 1991. Titled "Rotation in cosmology," the essay deals a death blow to objections to a rotating universe. As the abstract says, "it is shown that pure cosmic rotation does not produce either causality violations, nor parallax effects, nor anistropy of the microwave background radiation." (It falls on pages 121-128 of that secular refereed journal.)


Regarding (2) and the Earth-Moon system I discussed earlier, consult the journal General Relativity and Gravitation, Volume 21, No. 2, 1989, pgs. 105-124. Professors Ø. Grøn and E. Eriksen, in the article Translational Inertial Dragging, take up the issue of what forces arise within a spherical shell of matter.


Grøn & Eriksen inform us that "The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of "perfect dragging" the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell." (pg. 109-110).


G&E point out that "with reference to Newtonian mechanics we talk of inertial force fields in accelerated reference frames. However, according to the general principle of relativity, we may consider the laboratory as at rest. We then talk of gravitational dragging (acceleration) fields. The concept of 'inertial forces,' which may be regarded as a sort of trick in Newtonian mechanics, is thereby made superfluous."


On page 113, G&E cite C. Møller "in his standard [1952] textbook on general relativity", from chapter 8: "Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The 'fictitious' forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The 'fictitious forces' are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a 'field of gravitation' in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz. systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity."


Møller tells us that the only reference frame in which we can exclude consideration of the distant masses of the galaxies is in "systems of inertia," which G&E more carefully define as "frames of reference in which the cosmic mass has no observed rotation or translation acceleration." By this definition, the earth does not fulfill the requirement for being a system of inertia, since the heavens are observed to rotate around it. Therefore, Møller alerts us that we may NOT omit the rest of the universe in deriving the forces acting locally on the earth.


Grøn & Eriksen develop the consequences of Einstein's position to the hilt on pages 117-118 with an ironclad example: "As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein's field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon as at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid. ... This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein's field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational nontidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."


As to (3) and the supposed impossibility of objects traveling faster than the speed of light, we first point out that the authors above have ALREADY asserted such superluminal speeds to be possible -- and necessary -- in the framework of general relativity. Fred Hoyle agreed.  Let's drill down into some other corroborating circumstances.


Insofar as the high rotational speeds required by a geocentric system are concerned, these are dealt with at length in the late Sir Hermann Bondi's article, "The angular momentum of cylindrical systems in general relativity," published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Physical and Mathematical Sciencies, (1994), 446, pp. 57-66.  As he says, "The main point to note is that whereas in the newtonian discussion, non-rotation of the reference system at infinity is taken for granted, in the relativistic treatment such rotation is permitted but irrelevant to the measure of angular momentum, which is an intrinsic characteristic of the material system."  (p. 64)  “What is the nature of this limit? For such a cylinder the required angular velocity makes the tangential velocity at r = r2 equal to the speed of light….Both the space drag on the core and  A [angular momentum] will be unaffected by such outside layers….The conservation of A occurs even if gravitational waves are emitted by the cylinder. This is perhaps not surprising, since the cylindrical symmetry of the waves precludes their carrying angular momentum…. Therefore the intrinsic nature of the angular momentum of the inner becomes patent as it is wholly unaffected by anything that goes on outside. Thus there is no transfer of angular momentum between outer and inner” (ibid., pp. 63-64). Bondi telegraphs this derivation at p. 61 thus: "It is a remarkable fact, discussed later, and of some relevance to machian considerations that this unique conserved measure of angular momentum appropriate to the symmetry imposed is independent of any superposed state of rotation." As stated in his absract, "It emerges that angular momentum and space drag behave very differently as thicker and thicker spinning cylinders are studied." The "thicker and thicker spinning cylinders" are the ones with tangential speed exceeding the speed of light, as he makes clear. As he states elsewhere (p. 59), "Note that with the coordinate changes permitted in general relativity, a uniform rotation can always be abolished."  In context, it means you can pick a reference frame (the Earth) and set its rotation to zero -- which is permitted in general relativity. In fact, this paper explains how this fixed center/rotating cosmos implication of GR affects the principle of angular momentum. Bondi specifically defends superluminal rotation of the cosmos in this paper. Lots of folks think taking the Earth as stationary and the universe as rotating would have undesirable angular momentum implications, because they're thinking in Newtonian terms and don't grasp what the actually conserved quantity is that we term "angular momentum."  Bondi has done the derivation, and his Figure 1 (p. 65) shows the interrelationship of space drag against systemic angular momentum and angular velocity -- not linear at all, but with intersecting curves. THIS is the reality that general relativity codifies.  This agrees with all that's been written on this topic in the refereed journals that focus on GR. Bondi makes no mention of Mach throughout the derivation: it is straightforward physics.


"Only theory!" you protest? "Show me a physical measurement of something traveling faster than light!" you challenge? No problem. You can consult, with profit, the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics.  The issue contains an article entitled, “Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?”, written by W.M. Stuckey.  Two pertinent quotes from this journal article: “It is widely accepted among astronomers that general relativistic cosmology allows for Hubble recessional velocities greater than the speed of c.”  Elsewhere, in providing an empirical example of this, Stuckey writes: “The example employed here is that of a recently discovered quasar with redshift of 4.73.  The current recessional velocity of the quasar is 1.2c from Equation 13.  ... the recessional velocity ... at emission time is 2.8c.”  We note that the reason these objects move faster than c is attributed to a property of the space they're in: space is held to be stretching.  The geocentric model also attributes superluminal velocities to a property of space, but it proposes that space rotates. In each model, it's a property of space that is credited with the faster-than-light motion. But who's going to argue that space can stretch but not rotate?  If it can do one, why is it barred from the other? If it doesn't stretch, how do you explain the reported published speed of these quasars?  And since THESE objects are traveling faster than light, what right does anyone have to say that the cosmos can't rotate diurnally because objects can't go that fast?  That entire objection has just been experimentally falsified (and has been known to be thus falsified for several decades).


So, yes, continuing this thread will be entirely pointless unless you familiarize yourself with what science ACTUALLY teaches about the matters in hand.  If you're simply going to spit out long-discredited "stock objections" you'll end up with lots of egg on your face. If you're going to be smug in doing so, that will also come back to roost.  You need to know the current literature to make a case, NOT simply dismiss it as nonsense in the interest of some kind of argumentum ad ignorantiam you're propounding.


So, let's hear back from you as to why continuing the thread is actually pointless:

והארץ תלויה באמצע (Rambam)




« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 01:47:57 PM by Mifletzet »

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2007, 07:04:24 PM »
OK, have it your way.

The entire universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.

The Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.


Lubab, I'm not sure if you believe Mifle's theory, but if you do, I'd like you to go on record now as saying that you too believe the Sun orbits the Earth once every 24 hours, and that the entire Universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.

If you do, then I challenge you to produce a single astronomer that actually thinks this is happening.

That shouldn't be too difficult, right ?

Mifle realizes that the existence of a 24 hour day on an Earth that isn't rotating on it's axis can only be explained by having the Sun complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours. He's gone to great lengths to research the matter and has convinced himself that this is not only theoretically possible, it's actually happening.

So, I'm curious as to whether you too, subscribe to the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.

Cards on the table, Lubab.


Offline Lubab

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Master JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2007, 09:02:45 PM »
OK, have it your way.

The entire universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.

The Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.


Lubab, I'm not sure if you believe Mifle's theory, but if you do, I'd like you to go on record now as saying that you too believe the Sun orbits the Earth once every 24 hours, and that the entire Universe is rotating around the Earth faster than the speed of light.

If you do, then I challenge you to produce a single astronomer that actually thinks this is happening.

That shouldn't be too difficult, right ?

Mifle realizes that the existence of a 24 hour day on an Earth that isn't rotating on it's axis can only be explained by having the Sun complete an orbit around the Earth every 24 hours. He's gone to great lengths to research the matter and has convinced himself that this is not only theoretically possible, it's actually happening.

So, I'm curious as to whether you too, subscribe to the belief that the Sun orbits the Earth every 24 hours.

Cards on the table, Lubab.



Lubab believes whatever view the Torah espouses. Okay?

What's the Torah view on this? Good question. I beleive it is the Torah position that the entire universe goes around the earth (the Even  Hashesiya in Jerusalem to be more precise) every 24 hours.

And if you think that's impossible-your problem is not with me or the Torah. Your problem is with relativity. Take it up with Einstein, go read his book "Relativity". Under relativity, that model I just mentioned is no better or worse than the one they convinced you of in elementary school. (But remember, they're teaching that Islam is a peaceful religion in elementary school too now so so much for elementary school for giving you the truth! :D)

If you are really interested in that topic, why not check out the scholarly papers Mifletfet cited above?



P.S. Oh. You wanted an astronomer who believes that. Well, who beleives what (subjective) is not the issue here. The issue is what is mathematically and sceintifically acceptable (objective). I don't live in a cave. I know most people believe the heliocentric model. In large part that's because it's the easiest one to understand and explain. This became the model taught in the schools and eventually it just became the accepted dogma. But those who are students of the theory of relativity will tell you either model is possible. If you give me any astronemer and we can chat about relativity for half an hour I bet you he'll agree with me that either model is possible. He still may walk away beleiving the helio-centric model makes more sense to him, but that is his personal right as an American! By the way, you also have the right to choose any model you wish. I just choose the Torah model because I'm a Torah Jew!
« Last Edit: June 13, 2007, 10:06:51 PM by lubab »
"It is not upon you to finish the work, nor are you free to desist from it." Rabbi Tarfon, Pirkei Avot.

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #109 on: June 14, 2007, 12:26:14 AM »
OK, Lubab, fair enough.

You believe the entire universe orbits a stationary Earth every 24 hours.

Just wanted to be sure.


Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #110 on: June 14, 2007, 04:40:31 AM »
"It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." (Lubavitcher Rebbe)

Dr Gerardus Bouw PhD astronomy www.geocentricity.com
Dr Neville Jones PhD physics www.geocentricperspective.com 
Sungenis PhD and Bennett's PhD www.galileowaswrong.com/
engineer Malcolm Bowden
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/malcolmbowden/Geocexpl.htm
have pro-geocentric sites. There are others.

There are several geocentric articles in B'Or HaTorah www.borhatorah.org
written by Orthodox Jewish PhD scientists.

All Relativists, if they are worthy of their salt, are obliged by definition to accept the geocentric model as being a primus inter pares.

Even an atheist like Bertrand Russell admitted: admitted "Whether the earth rotates once a day from west to east as Copernicus taught, or the heavens revolve once a day from east to west as his predecessors held, the observable phenomena will be exactly the same: a metaphysical assumption has to be made".
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 05:00:11 AM by Mifletzet »

Offline Muck DeFuslims

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1070
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #111 on: June 14, 2007, 05:55:59 AM »
Mif, Just to humor you, I took a few minutes to peruse the first site you provided a link to. Here's what I found in the first few minutes which told me I needn't bother to waste much more time at the site....
 
Here's just one of a multitude of the interesting quotes the reader will find from the writers and 'qualified scientists' there:
(Jewish readers of this thread should really enjoy the following quote and find it especially revealing !!)

"Einsteinian Relativity is anti-Biblical, but it is not a wholly secular concept. Indeed, it is an essential part of another "creation account" given in another "holy book", i.e., the Kabbala. This "holy book", with its 13th century Rabbinical concept of a "Big Bang-Expanding Universe", is an instrument of another religion which--along with the Talmud--specifically targets the Bible--and especially the New Testament of Jesus Christ--for destruction."

Notice the way the Kabbala is ridiculed and derisively referred to as a 'holy book' with sarcastic quote marks around it.

Also notice that according to this 'reputable' geocentric site the Talmud is the 'instrument of another religion' which 'targets the Bible for destruction'.

I'm sure the Jews reading this thread will be thrilled to know the Talmud targets the Bible for destruction.

Here's another 'proof' of geocentrism (in the form of a question designed to discredit Kepler and prove Copernicus was wrong) at this magnificent site:

"WHAT IF - Kepler's mother was a witch and he was raised a warlock assigned to bump Brahe off, wreck his work, steal his records, and twist them to promote Copernicanism and help pave the way for evolutionism (which he wrote about 250 years before Darwin)?"

Folks, I'm not making this stuff up.
And Mif takes this site seriously.

Mif, you'll have to excuse me if I don't bother checking the other site you linked to, I suspect it's similar to the first one, and there's only so much nonsense a rational human being can stand.

Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #112 on: June 14, 2007, 07:55:19 AM »
The Xtians have their own religious agenda, which we ignore.

Rav Avigdor Miller supported the "Moral Majority" and frequently quoted Xtian Young Earth Creation Scientists (who bring solid scientific supporting a 6000 year old universe), as well as lambasting the AOJS (Association of Orthodox Jewish Scientists) for their support of theistic evolution & billions of years!

Even Chaim praises the good points of some Xtians, and R.Kahane said that Xtian Zionists are more than useful, and that their support should be curried.

Many an Xtian has become a Noahide.

You should ignore their NT bias & concentrate on the scientific pro-geocentric sections of those sites.

At least a Creation Scientist believes in G-d and the truth of the OT.

Maybe Muck de Fuslim prefers to hold to the opinions of atheistic anti-Torah scientists like Richard Dawkins, Stephen Gould, Carl Sagan, Patrick Moore and Stephen Hawkins?!

But if you are absolutely allergic to anything written by gentile scientists, then read in the B'Or HaTorahs and give us your opinion of these writtten by Torah Jewish scientists:

"Geocentrism", Dr Avi Rabinowitz BHT 5 1986

"The Earth is Established - it cannot be moved", Amnon Goldberg BHT 10 1998

"Torah Metaphysics versus Newtonian Empiricism", Rabbi Shimon Cowen BHT 11 2000

"Give me a place to stand", Prof Juris Zakis BHT 13 2002

"The Observer and the System of Reference: A Unified View", Prof Herman Branover & Prov Ruvin Ferber BHT 13 2002

“Relativity and Geocentrism” in “Mind over Matter - the Lubavitcher Rebbe on Science, Technology and Medicine" 2003.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 03:11:21 PM by Mifletzet »

Offline Lubab

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Master JTFer
  • *
  • Posts: 1641
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #113 on: June 14, 2007, 03:47:08 PM »
OK, Lubab, fair enough.

You believe the entire universe orbits a stationary Earth every 24 hours.

Just wanted to be sure.



I don't know why this is much harder to believe than what goes on with physical matter. I mean, in the atoms that make up your table you've got electrons going around the nucleas at a rate much faster than the speed of light. And yet, somehow, when these atoms are all working together we see a table that appears lifeless and motionless and almost dead.

I believe that what goes on with atoms is the same thing going on in the universe-only one is at the macro level and the other is at the micro-level.

G-d created all physical matter in one shot. So the same tremendous force that got the universe moving-got the electrons moving too. I believe it's all connected.

I mean no matter which viewpoint you adopt our solar system is in some tremendous motion and there is so much going on and yet it all seems so orderly and calm.

Yes. It's quite an amazing world we live in and Scriabin was right about our hopes of ever getting to the depths of it.

But hey, that's why this thread is in the appreciation for creation section right?  ;)
« Last Edit: June 14, 2007, 03:51:31 PM by lubab »
"It is not upon you to finish the work, nor are you free to desist from it." Rabbi Tarfon, Pirkei Avot.

Offline Dominater96

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 477
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #114 on: September 22, 2007, 11:48:56 PM »
Rav Hai Gaon says specificly that the sciene that the Chachamim used, and the science of the Gemara, can be wrong, and some of it IS WRONG. The reason it is wrong is either A) It was the accepted theory of that day. B) They used Greek sources. I recommend reading Rav Nosson Slifkins books on these matters. The Challenge of Creation is a great book, and Mysterious Creatures. The Rav Hai Gaon source to come................

Offline HiWarp

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #115 on: September 23, 2007, 08:50:32 AM »
Does your view of the geocentric model explain the retrograde motion of planets that is observed from the Earth by using epicycles?  Is it a common belief that the planets of our solar system all orbit the Sun and that this system then orbits the Earth?

What about the gravitational force of objects being directly related to their mass?
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
---Thomas Jefferson

Offline androbot2084

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #116 on: September 24, 2007, 11:55:16 AM »
As far as the official opinion of Stephen Hawking, Hawking stated that if the universe is  infinite then any point in the universe could be the center.

Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundementally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus.  However astronomer Tycho Braun presented a hybrid Ptolemy Copernicus model of the universe in which the planets orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth.  This model has good navigational accuracy however it does cause the planets to assume spirographic orbits in relation to the Earth. 


Offline HiWarp

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1867
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #117 on: September 25, 2007, 07:29:24 AM »
Quote from: androbot2084 link=topic=4093.msg90690#msg90690 date=
As far as the official opinion of Stephen Hawking, Hawking stated that if the universe is  infinite then any point in the universe could be the center.

Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundementally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus.  However astronomer Tycho Braun presented a hybrid Ptolemy Copernicus model of the universe in which the planets orbit around the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth.  This model has good navigational accuracy however it does cause the planets to assume spirographic orbits in relation to the Earth. 


But in Tycho Brahe's model there existed instances where Jupiter and Saturn where closer to the Earth than Mars and Venus.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”
---Thomas Jefferson

Offline androbot2084

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #118 on: September 25, 2007, 05:57:05 PM »
I am not saying that Tycho's model does not need updating however a spirographic Earth centered universe will have more support from the artistic community as it generates more interesting geometric patterns rather than the boring circular patterns of the Copernicus model.  Also we have to consider the politics of the day and the fact that Tycho treated Kepler like a dog so it is no wonder that when Tycho died Kepler abandonded the Tycho model in favor of the Copernicus model and this was done out of spite rather than scientific accuracy.

Offline androbot2084

  • Junior JTFer
  • **
  • Posts: 31
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #119 on: September 25, 2007, 09:00:52 PM »
I just downloaded my spirographic earth centered universe computer simulator.  I found this at www.pwr-tools.com/simsolar/index.htm
« Last Edit: September 25, 2007, 09:06:16 PM by androbot2084 »

Offline Mifletzet

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 307
Re: Earth at the Center of the Universe
« Reply #120 on: September 30, 2007, 11:58:52 AM »
Quote
Obviously the Ptolemy model of a geocentric universe is fundamentally flawed as proven by the observation of the phases of Venus.

No, the Ptolemaic model can be rescued by putting the sun on the deferent. This is what Tycho Brahe did, in effect.

Quote
In Brahe's model there existed instances where Jupiter and Saturn where closer to the Earth than Mars and Venus.

Tycho's model was not drawn to scale.  If the actual distances are used
his model gives the correct, observed distances.