Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

[InTheLight]

I'll bet at some point you told someone that Jupiter has more gravity than the earth.

As someone else on BB has said, "you ought to take that mind reading act on the road".

You merely hate the fact that modern physicists are saying there is no more truth to the heliocentric model than to a geocentric one, so you want to turn your attention to my wording.

Modern physicists aren't saying anything about the "truth" of the geocentric model, no matter how many threads you start.

It doesn't matter. In a field of gravity, the speed of light is relative. Not constant. And there is no difference between the effects of gravity exerted by centrifugal forces or the mass of an object.

Dumb, dumb, dumb. You really ought to stick with things that you know something about, like....well, I can't think of any right now. Oh wait, insulting women.

Pretty hard to walk back your statement that gravity can speed up light, isn't it? It's been said and I've requoted you so it's on the record.

 

[Aaron]

Modern physicists aren't saying anything about the "truth" of the geocentric model, no matter how many threads you start.

They say there's no truth in either the geocentric or the heliocentric models. You're saying there's truth in one of them.

 

[Aaron]

Pretty hard to walk back your statement that gravity can speed up light, isn't it? It's been said and I've requoted you so it's on the record.

I don't have to. It's not my comment:

. . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo . . . cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light) Einstein, Relativity (page 77)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4...MAhUCt4MKHdl_Cq4Q6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false


Max Born:
If we take the earth as the system of reference, we have

the centrifugal field (III, 9, p. 70) 4^-, which assumes enormous

values at great distances. Hence the g's have values that
differ greatly from the Euclidean values of (99). Therefore the
velocity of light is much greater for some directions of the
light-ray than its ordinary value c, and other bodies can also
attain much greater velocities.
​

 

[InTheLight]

Is Light Affected By Gravity?
Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant?

Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant.

Dr. Eric Christian, Research Scientist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

 

[Aaron]

[This is not in response to ITL's post directly above. For a rebuttal to that see the one directly above his.]

But I never claimed to know the nuances of the theories of relativity. I'm only telling you what physicists have said. I've quoted it many times, and I will one more time.

In regard to assuming a geocentric model, or a heliocentric one:

Einstein: Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification [by the theories of Relativity.]

Hawking: . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained [by the theories of Relativity] by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.
​

I don't know for sure, but I'm going to assume Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking know more about the theories than do I or anyone else posting on this thread. So if your argument is that the theories of Relativity won't justify a geocentric model, or does so less than a heliocentric one, then your argument is with them, and not with me.

I already said I'm content to accept the honest conclusions of those who've made the observations and peformed the experiments.

 

[Aaron]

Hawking: . . . one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained [by the theories of Relativity] by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest.
​

If we assume the Earth to be at rest, the most dramatic observation would be a celestial sphere rotating at a velocity much, much greater than the speed of light. Hawking said that can be explained.

Aaron can't explain it. And he never claimed to be able to explain it, though he did look up some of the primary sources.

The funny thing is what many people here think they know.

 

[InTheLight]

So if your argument is that the theories of Relativity won't justify a geocentric model, or does so less than a heliocentric one, then your argument is with them, and not with me.

No, my argument is with your (incorrect) statement that gravity affects the speed of light.

 

[InTheLight]

Oh, and how nice that Internet Theologian rated my direct quotation of a NASA PhD scientist as being "Dumb".

Hilarious!

*Woof*

 

[Rolfe]

 

[TCassidy]

Oh, and how nice that Internet Theologian rated my direct quotation of a NASA PhD scientist as being "Dumb".

Some times even NASA Ph.Ds say dumb things.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Yeup, some time Ph.D stands for Posthole Digger.

Some times even NASA Ph.Ds say dumb things.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Does not "centricity" depend on one's frame of reference? If I set a small gyroscope spinning and then place it on a merry-go-round, the gyroscope is still spinning about its axis, while also spinning about the center of the ride. Choosing one "centricity" as being more valid than the other seems pointless. Perhaps that's the purpose of starting this thread.

While the Earth and moon are a geocentric system, I think that gravitational theory (even as tweaked by Relativity) shows the solar system to be heliocentric. For the hugely greater mass of the Sun to be held in a near-circular orbit around Earth would show the Newtonian gravity formula to be wrong by many orders of magnitude, but that formula accurately predicted gravitational attraction within the ability of pre-20th century instruments to detect.

Going to farther distances, the Milky Way might be said to be "galactic-core-centric", and I think the universe has even larger circulation systems. What's most important is that the universe itself is God-centric. (Even if many of its inhabitants seek to deny that.)

 

[Aaron]

Summary thus far:

Einstein created his theories of Relativity in no small part because of the failure of experiments to prove the motion of the earth.

According to modern physicists, including Einstein and Hawking, the geocentric and heliocentric models are equally justifiable by the theories of Relativity. (So would be a lunarcentric model, or any other model based on the assumption of any body to be at rest.)

Thus, the widely accepted notion that the earth orbits the sun (a notion that I accept btw, because I believed my science teachers) is no more a scientific reality than the notion that the earth is at rest and the sun moves around the earth.

The faster than light speeds of the distant stars and galaxies that would result by assuming the earth to be at rest can be accounted for by the theory of general relativity where bodies and light can assume values much greater than 186,000 mps.

 

[Aaron]

Mach's principle can be stated as, 'the distribution of matter and field energy-momentum (and possibly other information) at a particular moment in the universe determines the inertial frame at each point in the universe'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle


Einstein gave the name 'Mach's Principle' to the following related ideas: that only relative motion is observable, and hence that there should be no dynamically privileged reference frames; that inertial forces should arise from a gravitational interaction between matter only, and so from an an observer-dependent splitting of the total gravitational field; that space-time is not an absolute element of physics, but that its metric structure is totally dependent on the matter content of the Universe.

. . .

Mach's Principle is found to be satisfied in Robertson-Walker models and in a simple class of inhomogeneous solutions. These results lead us to suggest that Mach's Principle may play a role in explaining the observed gross features of the Universe.
Mach's Principle in General Relativity

 

[InTheLight]

According to modern physicists, including Einstein and Hawking, the geocentric and heliocentric models are equally justifiable by the theories of Relativity. (So would be a lunarcentric model, or any other model based on the assumption of any body to be at rest.)

Thus, the widely accepted notion that the earth orbits the sun (a notion that I accept btw, because I believed my science teachers) is no more a scientific reality than the notion that the earth is at rest and the sun moves around the earth.

Really? So when the Mars Curiosity Rover sends transmissions back to earth and the transmission time varies with the changing position of Mars relative to Earth, I wonder why that happens if the earth is the center of the solar system and therefore Mars is equidistant from earth at all times?

 

[Rob_BW]

Your Wikipedia article even states: Although Einstein was intrigued and inspired by Mach's principle, Einstein's formulation of the principle is not a fundamental assumption of general relativity.

 

[Aaron]

But it is applied. Ergo, the second citation.

Guys, I ain't makin' this stuff up. Your own apostles are saying this stuff. Thinking that Relativity proves heliocentricity is true is not science. It allows it, but by the very same principles it allows heliocentricity, it allows geocentricity.

Physicists are saying this. Not me. Check out the OP again.

 

[InTheLight]

But it is applied. Ergo, the second citation.

Guys, I ain't makin' this stuff up. Your own apostles are saying this stuff. Thinking that Relativity proves heliocentricity is not science. It allows it, but by the very same principles it allows heliocentricity, it allows geocentricity.

Physicists are saying this. Not me. Check out the OP again.

So what? Relativity "allows" for all sorts of stuff that will likely never be observed. Exactly what is your point? That geocentricity is allowable under Einstein's theories? So is time running backwards.

Is it really worth all the bluster you've given to the topic?

 

[Rob_BW]

If I fire a shell, it will go measurably farther or shorter, depending on how far east or west the gun is aimed. And instead of saying that this is a verifiable proof that the earth is spinning independently of the shell while it is airborne, you claimed that gravity from some foreign object is effecting the shell, like the moon causes the tides. Except, the tides go in and out, and our shell is only being tugged in one direction.

I think I'm done playing for a while.

 

[Aaron]

Really? So when the Mars Curiosity Rover sends transmissions back to earth and the transmission time varies with the changing position of Mars relative to Earth, I wonder why that happens if the earth is the center of the solar system and therefore Mars is equidistant from earth at all times?

The math works out no matter the coordinate system employed. Timing communication with the Mars Rover is not dependent on the heliocentric model.

I'm not arguing geocentricity, but it doesn't say the earth is the center of the solar system, as if the gravity of the earth is retains the sun in orbit. Geocentricity argues that the earth occupies the center of the mass of the universe. Assuming it is in the center of mass, it is by definition at rest, and everything is carried around it by the rotating heavens.

Aaron didn't do the math on that. Physicists did. That is their conclusion. Honesty will compel them to admit that both models can be used with equal justification, but they will always say, the earth goes round the sun.

Here are the implications: what you thought was settled science really is not. It is an assumption. It may be a logical assumption, but there is no science that compels one to say that one model is more true than another. I've quoted them enough in this thread. You either agree with them or not, but your argument isn't with me.