The Geocentrism Challenge
- Thread starter vbloke
- Start date
-
- Tags
- geocentrism
)
Re: THE CHALLENGE IS MIS-STATED
So the check will be made payable to Galileo, or Copernicus?
Either way, why bother to make this challenge the way they did? It's a focused enough of a conclusion that they should just prove the earth revolves around the sun and stop with the grandstanding...
...oh wait, they can't.
BillyJoe said:
So the check will be made payable to Galileo, or Copernicus?
Either way, why bother to make this challenge the way they did? It's a focused enough of a conclusion that they should just prove the earth revolves around the sun and stop with the grandstanding...
...oh wait, they can't.
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
I've been toying with this off and on.
You figure we have three possibilites:
The sun revolves around the earth. (or the center of gravity)
The earth revolves around the sun. (or the center of gravity)
The two bodies are both orbiting some other, unknown body. We'll call it God, just for the heck of it. One has an inner orbit, the other has an outer orbit. (Because this possibility amuses me in a Sci-Fi way and it should round out all possible set ups, right?)
Now, I haven't actually taken the time to really toy with this (damn WoW keeping me from $1000), but wouldn't movements of Mercury and Venus drop all but the middle two? How are they explained in a geocentric model? Sun revolves with the other planets around the Earth/God?
You figure we have three possibilites:
The sun revolves around the earth. (or the center of gravity)
The earth revolves around the sun. (or the center of gravity)
The two bodies are both orbiting some other, unknown body. We'll call it God, just for the heck of it. One has an inner orbit, the other has an outer orbit. (Because this possibility amuses me in a Sci-Fi way and it should round out all possible set ups, right?)
Now, I haven't actually taken the time to really toy with this (damn WoW keeping me from $1000), but wouldn't movements of Mercury and Venus drop all but the middle two? How are they explained in a geocentric model? Sun revolves with the other planets around the Earth/God?
LostAngeles said:
That observation is exactly the argument galileo used.
I noticed their catholics. And the rules say no appeals to authority can be used. Surely the vatican observatory is an exception to their rule? They wouldn't take it on authority from their own church?
LostAngeles
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2004
- Messages
- 10,109
fowlsound said:
That's what I thought. Sorta. It seemed the most obvious and simple way that someone must have done it.
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
Anyone notice the challenge page is dated 2002? If he was going to award anything it would have happened by now.
This guy is clearly no more representative of the Catholic church than I am. Which is not at all.
This guy is clearly no more representative of the Catholic church than I am. Which is not at all.
Trebuchet said:
I agree with you, but the logical fallacy still persists in his arguments.
He's saying you cannot cite from authority to win. (edited to add the following statement) Yet he is citing the authority of the bible as his proof.
He also says that he is a Catholic. You don't have to be a Catholic priest to have an edict from Rome impact your beliefs. All Catholics follow the pope and what he says, right?
So what he's saying is that he is committing herecy, which if we were in the past would be a matter for the inquisition, but nowadays means he can be excommunicated.
Hey! Charlie, once you've nocked off that one you can do this one too.... 
Evolution Challenge
Back on topic. Check out these cool graphs.
Hutton Gibson's First Try
Evolution Challenge
Same terms and conditions which you, not they, follow.
Back on topic. Check out these cool graphs.
Hutton Gibson's First Try
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'd like to claim $1,001,000
Except my comment was not an appeal to authority. I never said ol' Willy was necessarily correct. I also mentioned that geocentrism has a problem with the Sun not being the center of the solar system despite being the most massive body in the system, and thus has the greatest gravitational influence.
sphenisc said:That was the point I was making about your comment; only mine was pithy, ironic and quite witty. [ I couldn't find an irony smiley - will this do]
Except my comment was not an appeal to authority. I never said ol' Willy was necessarily correct. I also mentioned that geocentrism has a problem with the Sun not being the center of the solar system despite being the most massive body in the system, and thus has the greatest gravitational influence.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist
The mathematics can be done in either a geocentric or a heliocentric context. The heliocentric maths are far more complicated though, because then you've got to take into account epicycles and all that complex movement. The Ptolmaic structure was pretty detailed. One of the strengths of the Copernican system (especially when modified by Kepler's elliptical orbits) was that it was simpler.
But since you can still calculate the orbits by using a geocentric perspective, the challenge will never be won.
How many different reasons can we think of for this challenge to never be one?
But since you can still calculate the orbits by using a geocentric perspective, the challenge will never be won.
How many different reasons can we think of for this challenge to never be one?
Just one: God dunnit, so you're wrong.
Incidentally, I note two errors in their response to Gibson's entry.
First, that the radio transmissions from directly receding space probes would appear to be NOT coming from where they actually are located in the sky. This is because electromagnetic waves travels at a specific known speed, they are NOT affected by any "aether", and the probes would move sideways rapidly from where they initiated transmission. Further, radio transmissions from Earth TO these probes would need to allow for a considerable "lead" in order to hit them. (Actually, it would be more like trying to shoot at a target on the edge of a fast merry-go-round while you stand in the centre.) That neither case happens or is necessary shows that either "space" does not rotate about the Earth, or that the Earth rotates at the same rate as "space" (a condition denied by the geocentric theory).
Second, the "aether" is a totally imaginary substance that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved, and is quite contrary to their assertions that Michelson DID prove it exists. Michelson and Morley spent considerable time and effort in an attempt to measure "the aether" accurately - that they failed to produce any results confirmed the null hypothesis, namely that it does not exist.
There are a whole lot more invalid assumptions, arguments from incredulity, and just plain old innaccuracies, and yet they feel they are right. The best question to them would probably be: What would you accept by way of proof that you are wrong? Clearly, for these people, the answer is "nothing". Hence it's pointless.
Incidentally, I note two errors in their response to Gibson's entry.
First, that the radio transmissions from directly receding space probes would appear to be NOT coming from where they actually are located in the sky. This is because electromagnetic waves travels at a specific known speed, they are NOT affected by any "aether", and the probes would move sideways rapidly from where they initiated transmission. Further, radio transmissions from Earth TO these probes would need to allow for a considerable "lead" in order to hit them. (Actually, it would be more like trying to shoot at a target on the edge of a fast merry-go-round while you stand in the centre.) That neither case happens or is necessary shows that either "space" does not rotate about the Earth, or that the Earth rotates at the same rate as "space" (a condition denied by the geocentric theory).
Second, the "aether" is a totally imaginary substance that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved, and is quite contrary to their assertions that Michelson DID prove it exists. Michelson and Morley spent considerable time and effort in an attempt to measure "the aether" accurately - that they failed to produce any results confirmed the null hypothesis, namely that it does not exist.
There are a whole lot more invalid assumptions, arguments from incredulity, and just plain old innaccuracies, and yet they feel they are right. The best question to them would probably be: What would you accept by way of proof that you are wrong? Clearly, for these people, the answer is "nothing". Hence it's pointless.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Re: I'd like to claim $1,001,000
I really don't see how you can claim that my comment was an appeal to authority but yours isn't. My comment was structured identically to your own, with a substitution of nouns; either we are both appealling to authority or neither of us are.
Secondly, an appeal to authority does not require an explicit statement of that authority's correctness. It is sufficient to refer to said authority in a 'positive' manner, without further analysis of their arguments - that is what we both do.
Geocentrism may or may not have a problem with the Sun not being the centre of the solar system, but that's not what it is in question here. This is a two body problem discussing the revolution of Earth and Sun. The fact that the rest of the solar system is/is not 'centred' on the Sun is as irrelevant as the fact that the Terran system [Earth+moon+artificial satellites] is centred on the Earth.
Mass is only relevant if that is your criterion for determining 'centre', it is just as easy to claim that Mars is the centre because it's the reddest or Pluto because it's the coldest ; or Earth is because there are or have been ~100,000,000,000 observers capable of watching the Sun in its motion round the Earth and saying so, whereas there are precisely none who have stood on the Sun and watched the Earth revolve around it.
Cheers
Hastur said:
I really don't see how you can claim that my comment was an appeal to authority but yours isn't. My comment was structured identically to your own, with a substitution of nouns; either we are both appealling to authority or neither of us are.
Secondly, an appeal to authority does not require an explicit statement of that authority's correctness. It is sufficient to refer to said authority in a 'positive' manner, without further analysis of their arguments - that is what we both do.
Geocentrism may or may not have a problem with the Sun not being the centre of the solar system, but that's not what it is in question here. This is a two body problem discussing the revolution of Earth and Sun. The fact that the rest of the solar system is/is not 'centred' on the Sun is as irrelevant as the fact that the Terran system [Earth+moon+artificial satellites] is centred on the Earth.
Mass is only relevant if that is your criterion for determining 'centre', it is just as easy to claim that Mars is the centre because it's the reddest or Pluto because it's the coldest ; or Earth is because there are or have been ~100,000,000,000 observers capable of watching the Sun in its motion round the Earth and saying so, whereas there are precisely none who have stood on the Sun and watched the Earth revolve around it.
Cheers
Re: Re: I'd like to claim $1,001,000
My only qualm with that definition is that while it includes the "I'm right because Mr. Authority says so" that is an appeal to authority, it also catches the "I'm right because [insert reason here]; Mr. Authority agrees with me in [insert source here]" that is not an appeal to authority. Also, my point was more that it was a theologian who posited the principle of parsimony rather than some scientist. An attack on CAI's credibility than on whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct.
Except that mass is the one criterion so far mentioned that actually has consequences. Under Einstein's theory of gravity, the more massive an object is, the more it distorts space-time around it, drawing in nearby objects of less mass and distortion. Because the Sun is a more massive object, it should be distorting space-time in such a way that the planets (including the Earth) should be orbiting it. We see in this in other solar systems, therefore how can we presume that our solar system is in any way different. It's going to take more than a few statements in a book with so many holes, I can push George Wendt through it sideways with plenty of room to spare, to counter that.
And before more people get their shorts in a twist, I understand that both heliocentrism and geocentrism have viable mathematical proofs, but math proofs, being artificial representations, always yield to credible observations.
sphenisc said:
My only qualm with that definition is that while it includes the "I'm right because Mr. Authority says so" that is an appeal to authority, it also catches the "I'm right because [insert reason here]; Mr. Authority agrees with me in [insert source here]" that is not an appeal to authority. Also, my point was more that it was a theologian who posited the principle of parsimony rather than some scientist. An attack on CAI's credibility than on whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct.
Except that mass is the one criterion so far mentioned that actually has consequences. Under Einstein's theory of gravity, the more massive an object is, the more it distorts space-time around it, drawing in nearby objects of less mass and distortion. Because the Sun is a more massive object, it should be distorting space-time in such a way that the planets (including the Earth) should be orbiting it. We see in this in other solar systems, therefore how can we presume that our solar system is in any way different. It's going to take more than a few statements in a book with so many holes, I can push George Wendt through it sideways with plenty of room to spare, to counter that.
And before more people get their shorts in a twist, I understand that both heliocentrism and geocentrism have viable mathematical proofs, but math proofs, being artificial representations, always yield to credible observations.
Fowlsound-
You have failed to grasp the essence of invisible pink unicorns.
They are pink by definition.
Otherwise they would just be invisible unicorns.
Not the same thing at all, don't you see?
It's just like semi invisible grinning Cheshire cats;- if they were not Cheshire cats, the whole thing would be ridiculous.
I'm sure you are grateful for that clarification.
ETA- If anyone thinks this is off the topic of the thread- I disagree most profoundly.
You have failed to grasp the essence of invisible pink unicorns.
They are pink by definition.
Otherwise they would just be invisible unicorns.
Not the same thing at all, don't you see?
It's just like semi invisible grinning Cheshire cats;- if they were not Cheshire cats, the whole thing would be ridiculous.
I'm sure you are grateful for that clarification.
ETA- If anyone thinks this is off the topic of the thread- I disagree most profoundly.
Quotes from James Randi's commentary (emphases mine)
"Well, friends, my offer last week to pay the JREF million to anyone who could prove that the Sun rotates about the Earth, got the expected storm of responses. All but a few properly pointed out that it's a matter of relativity — not Albert's variety, though similar — and that's of course right."
"It's very true that one can look upon the Earth as the reference position, in which case the Sun would be traveling around the Earth."
"When you walk across the beach, you will probably perceive that as your body moving across the surface of the Earth, which — relative to you — is standing still. But if you wished, you could also choose to decide that your legs are turning the planet Earth beneath your body — and that's just as correct as the more sober view. It's relative, you see."
Yes, I do see. So, who was the first and who gets the million?
"Well, friends, my offer last week to pay the JREF million to anyone who could prove that the Sun rotates about the Earth, got the expected storm of responses. All but a few properly pointed out that it's a matter of relativity — not Albert's variety, though similar — and that's of course right."
"It's very true that one can look upon the Earth as the reference position, in which case the Sun would be traveling around the Earth."
"When you walk across the beach, you will probably perceive that as your body moving across the surface of the Earth, which — relative to you — is standing still. But if you wished, you could also choose to decide that your legs are turning the planet Earth beneath your body — and that's just as correct as the more sober view. It's relative, you see."
Yes, I do see. So, who was the first and who gets the million?