The Geocentrism Challenge

[vbloke]

$1000 to prove the earth revolves around the sun?

This sounds like another Zammit style challenge, where logic, reason and truth are treated as little more than "well, the bible says otherwise, so you're wrong".

I'm no mathematician, astonomer or astropysicist, but surely there must be a 100% cast-iron arguemtn backed up with irrefutable evidence to blow this fallacy out of the water.

I admire Randis' stance on staking the $1m against the $1k, but to really damage the CAI, this needs a media blitz, with some very well respected scientists behind it.

 

[Trifikas]

My best guess as to the direction to go here would be The mars Rovers - the mathmatics were heliocentric-based, because if they weren't they'd have missed Mars. and we have the pics comming back from them.

My other guess is they'd just cry "Fake" however.


Trifikas

 

[John Jackson]

Just did a quick search and found this: http://catholicoutlook.com/original.php

From the challenge website : "By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive."

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.

Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation?

 

[vbloke]

Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation?

I'd say about the same as me proving the invisible pink unicorn really does live in my washing machine.

seriously, there isn't an arguement that could be put forward that couldn't be countered with "it's god's will". What this needs is a serious debunking in the press - newspapers, TV, radio, etc with as many scientists behind it as possible. Make them a laughing stock.

maybe the bad astronomer himself, Phil Plait, would like to get involved.

 

[rwguinn]

Just did a quick search and found this: http://catholicoutlook.com/original.php

From the challenge website : "By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive."

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.

Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation?

I think that is their contention--the measurements are all wrong.
And by observable--anything that happened in the past must have been observed (Probably by you only-no proxies such as Astronomers, scientists, etc--you had to be there...)

 

[Hastur]

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.

Medieval/CAI astronomer: It is the stars that are moving, not the Earth.


This challenge has all the credibility of Hovind's $250k evolution challenge.

 

[Ririon]

If they are catholics, it's easy to prove heliocentrism to them. Just get the pope to declare it to be so when he's not busy blessing Ferraris.

Ririon

 

[I'll_buy_that]

If they are catholics, it's easy to prove heliocentrism to them. Just get the pope to declare it to be so when he's not busy blessing Ferraris.

I have to respond to this as someone who was raised catholic, but never was one

Catholics have no problem with the sun being the center of the universe, they do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they do not believe the earth is flat, and they do not refute Newton's laws. There are a lot of very educated people in the catholic church and there are many catholic run universities, elementary and high schools that teach science separate from theology.

Just because there are Catholic nut jobs like Mel Gibson, does not make the whole religion nutty.

 

[lumos]

This challenge is easy for anybody with a background in mathematics and science to prove, irrefutably.

The math behind it is proof and you can't argue with it. Kepler and Newton took care of that. This is backed up by physical observation, in one instance, by the US space program. You can actually see the spacecraft in orbit, reliably, and predictably.

Heck if the Sun orbited the Earth, the Earth would orbit the International Space Station, which would be orbiting the space dust that would be orbiting the photons, etc.

If I actually believed they would award the money and/or I had enough time to spare, I would actually put together the proof and then sue them for not awarding the money.

 

[Ririon]

Just because there are Catholic nut jobs like Mel Gibson, does not make the whole religion nutty.

Exactly. These geocentrist guys clearly belong in the "nut job" cathegory. Regarding your sig, I know a few right wing Christians, and they are perfectly reasonable people, too. Until you start talking about anything that has a 100 % bulletproof answer in the Bible, of course...

Ririon

 

[sphenisc]

I'd like to claim $1,001,000

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

As described by William James, the concept of 'revolving' is observer dependent. From the perspective of an adjacent observer (standing nearby and remaining stationary with regard to a line drawn between the centre of the tree and and arbritrary mark on its bark), the human 'revolves' round the squirrel. From the squirrel's perspective the human doesn't. If the human in going round the tree remaing fixedly staring due west, then from the human's perspective, the squirrel revolves round the human.

Likewise with regards to the Earth-Sun system, from the viewpoint of an observer on Earth, the Sun revolves round the Earth; from the Sun, the Earth revolves round the Sun and viewed from the 'fixed stars', the Earth and Sun revolve round their common centre of gravity (which lies beneath the gaseous surface of the sun, so even from this perspective, the Earth can be said to revolve around the Sun (at least to a first approximation) .

In an Einsteinian Universe there are no 'privileged' observers whose perspective takes preference over others. Just as no one person's clock is 'right' or 'wrong' under Special Relativity, so no one person's description of 'revolving' can take precedence. Therefore both statements
"The Earth revolves round the Sun" and
"The Sun revolves round the Earth" are true for suitably specified observers, and I therefore claim BOTH prizes.

Please note that the heliocentric system is preferred primarily because it makes calculations easier, i.e it produces Keplerian equations in their simplest form, rather than having to translate back and forward between reference frames.

Cheers )

 

[Hastur]

Re: I'd like to claim $1,001,000

Please note that the heliocentric system is preferred primarily because it makes calculations easier, i.e it produces Keplerian equations in their simplest form, rather than having to translate back and forward between reference frames.

Cheers )

And the kicker:

Since heliocentrism is the simplest model, according to a particularly influential theologian, it is the most likely to be correct. Not to mention it is hard to reconcile why an entity so many times larger than the Earth would not be the dominant gravity well and thus have everything in its influence revolve around it.

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

This is a variant of what I"m going to post on The Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (someone beat me to it and started a thread here...).

I am sorely tempted to take 'em on.

What sort of challenges would I mount? Let's see...
The proofs must be "...direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive...".
Okay, 'direct, observable, physical, natural' we can pretty much figure out. 'Repeatable'...do the observations come up with the same results every time? Okay, got that one. 'Unambiguous'...from www.dictionary.com, "Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear."...sounds like they want their answer in definite terms. "Comprehensive"...again from www.dictionary.com, "1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution. 2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.". Now, this may be the wiggler here...comprehensive = all inclusive? "Two apples plus two oranges = four pieces of fruit. Yeah, but how about two plums and two tomatoes? You didn't include those in your calculations." I'll have to ask them to define a couple of terms.

Here's a question I need to ask them. They question whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. I need to know whether or not they believe that the Earth rotates at all, or does it sit there stationary, not moving. Doesn't necessarily change the conclusions, just changes the path to get to the conclusions...

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then everything else that apparently moves through the sky does the same...the Moon...the planets...and every object in the Universe that is observable by any method we have at hand. So that means we're back to a geocentric Universe, which means we can trot out every proof that every scientist/astronomer from Galileo to the present day have presented. In opposition, the CAI has the viewpoint expressed in the Bible.

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then analysis of the Sun's 'orbit' indicates that not only does it go around the Earth, it also varies in its orbital inclination to Earth's equator. If it didn't, there would be no indicator of seasons (the equinoxes and solstices). This would mean that the Sun's orbital path is not described by a circle, but by a cylinder!

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, but nothing else does, then what's the center of orbit for the Moon? What's the center of orbit for the planets?

If the planets orbit the Earth, instead of the Sun, doesn't that mean that the planetary orbits would have to be much more elliptical than they are because their distance from the Sun would vary much more? Wouldn't their orbital speed show wild fluctuations between the inbound and outbound orbital speeds because of these elliptical orbits?

If the planets don't orbit just the Earth, but instead orbit the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth, wouldn't the planetary orbits be a geometric figure the likes of which you'd see designed on an old Spirograph (Java applets available here to draw your own, and also to just see the results). In these wildly and decidedly not-even-vaguely-circular orbits, the distances from the individual planets to the Earth would vary much more dramatically than they do now, and there would be many more observable instances of retrograde motion. (The orbital mechanics necessary to calculate all this are way way way beyond me, but my imagination tempered with a little knowledge leads me to believe the statements of orbital condition. If I'm in error, I invite the reader to show me where I've gone wrong.)

If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, and if the Earth is the center of those orbits, then there wouldn't be the ability to calculate interstellar distances through geometry and trigonometry through the effects of parallax. If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, but the Earth is NOT the center of those orbits, then (A) what is, and (B) wouldn't parallax measurements indicate varying distances to the Earth (at least on those that are measurable due to the limits of instrumentation). If the non-Solar System objects DON'T orbit the Earth, then the same stars would be in the skies nightly year round. For the non-Solar System objects to display the behavior we currently observe if this was a geocentric Universe, then the objects' orbits would have to be the same as the Sun's, that is, one resembling a cylinder! Considering the distances involved, and the speeds necessary, wouldn't the red/blue shifts of various objects be grossly different at different times? (I may be off base on this one...again, corrections are welcomed.) And wouldn't the interactions between galaxies as they sail through interstellar space be happening on a regular basis, as well as being readily observable?

So, I'm tempted to ask them the questions posed above, about the Earth's rotation, and what constitutes 'comprehensive', and also to ask the question about who's going to be judging this competition? Someone or someones mutually acceptable, which takes away the home field advantage from them?

Of course, I'd need some assistance with the math involved in certain aspects, maybe some artwork assistance (I get the feeling these fine folk would benefit from looking at some pictures as opposed to written explanations), probably some editorial laying-on-of-hands (ahem), and proofreadin's out the hoohaw.

So tell me...whaddaya think? Are they worth taking a crack at? And am I anywhere near being on the right track to derail them?

 

[Zep]

It's all good, Charlie, but they would STILL quote the Bible as the ultimate refutation, and hold onto the dough.

 

[The Fool]

This is a variant of what I"m going to post on The Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (someone beat me to it and started a thread here...).

I am sorely tempted to take 'em on.

What sort of challenges would I mount? Let's see...
The proofs must be "...direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive...".
Okay, 'direct, observable, physical, natural' we can pretty much figure out. 'Repeatable'...do the observations come up with the same results every time? Okay, got that one. 'Unambiguous'...from www.dictionary.com, "Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear."...sounds like they want their answer in definite terms. "Comprehensive"...again from www.dictionary.com, "1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution. 2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.". Now, this may be the wiggler here...comprehensive = all inclusive? "Two apples plus two oranges = four pieces of fruit. Yeah, but how about two plums and two tomatoes? You didn't include those in your calculations." I'll have to ask them to define a couple of terms.

Here's a question I need to ask them. They question whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. I need to know whether or not they believe that the Earth rotates at all, or does it sit there stationary, not moving. Doesn't necessarily change the conclusions, just changes the path to get to the conclusions...

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then everything else that apparently moves through the sky does the same...the Moon...the planets...and every object in the Universe that is observable by any method we have at hand. So that means we're back to a geocentric Universe, which means we can trot out every proof that every scientist/astronomer from Galileo to the present day have presented. In opposition, the CAI has the viewpoint expressed in the Bible.

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then analysis of the Sun's 'orbit' indicates that not only does it go around the Earth, it also varies in its orbital inclination to Earth's equator. If it didn't, there would be no indicator of seasons (the equinoxes and solstices). This would mean that the Sun's orbital path is not described by a circle, but by a cylinder!

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, but nothing else does, then what's the center of orbit for the Moon? What's the center of orbit for the planets?

If the planets orbit the Earth, instead of the Sun, doesn't that mean that the planetary orbits would have to be much more elliptical than they are because their distance from the Sun would vary much more? Wouldn't their orbital speed show wild fluctuations between the inbound and outbound orbital speeds because of these elliptical orbits?

If the planets don't orbit just the Earth, but instead orbit the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth, wouldn't the planetary orbits be a geometric figure the likes of which you'd see designed on an old Spirograph (Java applets available here to draw your own, and also to just see the results). In these wildly and decidedly not-even-vaguely-circular orbits, the distances from the individual planets to the Earth would vary much more dramatically than they do now, and there would be many more observable instances of retrograde motion. (The orbital mechanics necessary to calculate all this are way way way beyond me, but my imagination tempered with a little knowledge leads me to believe the statements of orbital condition. If I'm in error, I invite the reader to show me where I've gone wrong.)

If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, and if the Earth is the center of those orbits, then there wouldn't be the ability to calculate interstellar distances through geometry and trigonometry through the effects of parallax. If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, but the Earth is NOT the center of those orbits, then (A) what is, and (B) wouldn't parallax measurements indicate varying distances to the Earth (at least on those that are measurable due to the limits of instrumentation). If the non-Solar System objects DON'T orbit the Earth, then the same stars would be in the skies nightly year round. For the non-Solar System objects to display the behavior we currently observe if this was a geocentric Universe, then the objects' orbits would have to be the same as the Sun's, that is, one resembling a cylinder! Considering the distances involved, and the speeds necessary, wouldn't the red/blue shifts of various objects be grossly different at different times? (I may be off base on this one...again, corrections are welcomed.) And wouldn't the interactions between galaxies as they sail through interstellar space be happening on a regular basis, as well as being readily observable?

So, I'm tempted to ask them the questions posed above, about the Earth's rotation, and what constitutes 'comprehensive', and also to ask the question about who's going to be judging this competition? Someone or someones mutually acceptable, which takes away the home field advantage from them?

Of course, I'd need some assistance with the math involved in certain aspects, maybe some artwork assistance (I get the feeling these fine folk would benefit from looking at some pictures as opposed to written explanations), probably some editorial laying-on-of-hands (ahem), and proofreadin's out the hoohaw.

So tell me...whaddaya think? Are they worth taking a crack at? And am I anywhere near being on the right track to derail them?

But Charlie.....God moves everything around the earth in a vastly complex and arbitrary fashion such that observation from earth is consistant with a solar centred system. God does this to test our faith and you can whistle for your thousand bucks...
NEXT!

 

[Charlie in Dayton]

Not to put too fine a point on it...maybe the key is to ask 'em the age old question "What would it take to convince you of..." and go for it from there.

Of course, what it takes has to relate to the question. "Proof of the nonexistence of God" doesn't cut the mustard here.

 

[SezMe]

Not to put too fine a point on it...maybe the key is to ask 'em the age old question "What would it take to convince you of..." and go for it from there.

Of course, what it takes has to relate to the question. "Proof of the nonexistence of God" doesn't cut the mustard here.

Good question. Go ask them - what's the harm?

 

[to.by]

I think the example with parallax should do the thing, at least if they were willing to listen to a rational argument. Another thing is that acceleration is not depending on the frame of reference, and it should, in principle, be possible to meashure the earth's accelaration in its orbit around the sun.

 

[sphenisc]

Re: Re: I'd like to claim $1,001,000

Since heliocentrism is the simplest model, according to a particularly influential theologian, it is the most likely to be correct.

Since geocentrism is in the Bible, according to other particularly influential theologians, it is the most likely to be correct. )

 

[BillyJoe]

THE CHALLENGE IS MIS-STATED

The following is s direct quote from the CAI site:

The Geocentrism Challenge

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.

The first thing to notice is that the challenge is a misnomer. They call it "The Geocentrism Challenge" but, in fact, they don't ask you to prove the Earth is not the centre of the universe, they ask you to "prove that the earth revolves around the sun".

Strictly, the earth does not revolve around the sun (Neither does the Earth revolve around the Sun ). As pointed out by sphenisc, the Earth revolves around the common centre of gravity between the Earth and the Sun. Therefore, strictly, no one will be able to claim the $1000.

BillyJoe