Talk:Modern geocentrism

See past discussion in the archive:

• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive1
• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive2

Truth Seeker is Back

Hello Art and all. I have not been involved in this article for a while (It really originated because of me- granted that the current configuration is largely do to Art), but want to come and work on it some more. I really think we need to emphasize certain issues:

1. There is no proof to the contrary 2. There is no proof at all that the earth is moving 3. There are observations which, removing the glasses of modern science, do support geocentrism 4. The main objections to geocentrism are philosophical 5. I would like to develop the history leading to acentrism as explained by Walter van De Kamp, Gerardus Bouw, etc. This will help illustrate and explain the philosophical issues and the resistance to geocentrism.

A lot of time is spent expalining why "modern science" rejects geocentrism. We need to develop in more detail why a. Geocentrists hold to geocentrism b.Geocentrists are not idiots who are ignorant and do not know science c. How though controversial, geocentrism is not impossible

It is perfectly fair to present the perspective of the opposition , especially considering how controversial it is. We should also present the perspective of the geocentrist- philosophical, moral, scientific, etc. Many geocentrists believe that the negativeresult of the Michelson Morley experiemnt, plus unexpected results in other experiments (Airy, Fitzgeau, etc.) led Einstein to develop acetric special and general relativism to save what he could for heliocentrism (i.e., rather abondon it for acentrism rather than even consider geocentrism). The effect is we now have no absolute space to theorize in. Though acentrism allows a lot of things to be done, a system with a real reference is preferable. Since neither system (acentric nonabsolute, geocentric / absolute- or at least some aether based theory with a reference frame) it is not impossible to omagine changing directions again. Some people in QM already are.Truth_Seeker

Hi, TruthSeeker.

Unfortunately, your edits weren't technically correct. The relativism of modern geocentrists is only taken to the point where it suits them, and then it is summarily abandoned. As such, it is inappropriate to claim that modern science is neutral on the subject of an absolute frame -- it most certainly isn't.

The quotes you included may be interesting from the POV of a modern geocentrist, but they are little more than statements about relativity taken out-of-context to attempt to support a claim that modern geocentrists don't even hold to (namely, modern geocentrists believe in strict geocentricity from all the resources I've seen).

I think there is quite a bit already in the article about how modern geocentrists use scientific arguments to try to put forward their positions. Including Ellis and Born quotes don't seem to do much more than confuse the issue.Joshuaschroeder 22:14, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Many geocentrists believe that the negativeresult of the Michelson Morley experiemnt, plus unexpected results in other experiments (Airy, Fitzgeau, etc.) led Einstein to develop acetric special and general relativism to save what he could for heliocentrism (i.e., rather abondon it for acentrism rather than even consider geocentrism)." --> while it is interesting that modern geocentrists believe things that are patently false (and can be shown to be false simply by reading Einstein's writings on the subject), I'm not sure how to exactly formulate it in the context of the article. Perhaps something like this: "Modern geocentrists believe that a vast conspiracy within the physics community exists whereby the gauge invariance of electromagnetism is claimed to be the basis for relativity. Instead, the modern geocentrists think that mainstream scientists are trying to cover up Einstein's facination of the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment". Joshuaschroeder 22:18, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that relativists reject any center, and I do not think that should be hidden in fact it is clear in the quotes. The rest of the "view of modern science" section spells that ou pretty clearly. On the other hand, relativity:

1. Clouds even the idea of a heliocentric solar system (by jettisoning the idea of absolute space)- this is clear from the quotes

Not really. The fact is that the convenience of a center of mass frame and the close assocation of the barycenter to the sun mean that the heliocentric solar system is not clouded in respect to straightforward kinematic calculations (witness how Newtonian mechanics can be taught).

2. Supports the idea that an earth centered universe would "look and feel" (kinetics and dynamics work out) the same as any other (ie., helio) centered universe or solar system.

No, an "earth centered universe" necessarily is NOT relativistic.

3. Cannot reject an earth centered universe other than its postulates (i.e., that of acentrism).

In fact, it can. "Acentrism" is a result of observed processes of electrodynamics and not just postulate.

The point is that an earth centered system could be comnsidered and would be just as effective (albeit possibly more complicated mathematics in some cases- though one could still do coordinate system transformations)as any other, if a different philosophical outlook were adapted.

Doesn't address the major point in the article that the earth-centered system is fundamentally different from a relativistic system. Joshuaschroeder 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the quotes help support the argument by showing that "modern scientists" themselves recognize and are not afraid to express the idea that a geocentric system is at least a valid mathematical system and can explain the observations and forces, and in fact such a model can not be disproven by observation (Ellis). I feel that there is a strong "modern science" view bent to the article. It is not fair to state that geocentrists only take relativism "so far". I am simply showing to what degree relativity disallows disproving of geocenmtrism and the relativists acknowledgements of parity of various systems. Truth_Seeker 03:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Expressing that a frame of reference can be chosen is not the same as accepting an absolute geocentric model. Neither Ellis nor Hoyle nor Born do that. There is no such thing as "disallowing disproving". It's a misnomer to be sure. Relativity states that there is a way to look at the universe through a Lorentz invariant metric that can be expressed from any vantage point you care to name. Of course, certain vantage points do not lend themselves to easy representation. Joshuaschroeder 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and strongly support your additions to the article. i will support the addition of any relevent and attributed viewpoint you provide. schroeder's hope to make geocentrism look "unscientific" and then blame the bible for it sets a new standard for illogic. neither science nor the bible have anything explicit to say on the topic. it is only a group of peculariarly arrogant scientists who seem to think that their knowledge of science gives them a monopoly over the realm of philosophy. in any event, keep it up:). Ungtss 03:36, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, it is clear you do not have the background to participate in this discussion. Your opinion is duly noted, but as it is not based on consideration of facts, we'll have to leave it aside for the time being. Joshuaschroeder 04:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss- I believe the Ellis quote came from your earlier edit. That is a good quote.Truth_Seeker

See above for a summary of schroeder's policy on any opinions he doesn't share. Ungtss 04:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problematic points of editting

Intro paragraph: "The term Modern Geocentrism refers to a belief that the Earth is the center of the universe, motivated by a literal interpretation of certain Bible passages, and the belief that modern science has no proof that the earth moves (translates or rotates), even with the awareness that essentially all modern scientists are not convinced by the evidence that the universe is earth centered. Modern geocentrists assert that the Geocentric model is capable of expalining all the observations and force interactions in the universe as well as any other perspective, and that the main objection to it is philosophical."

The intro paragraph is an amalgamation of very strange bits and pieces of imprecisely worded claptrap. For example "modern science has no proof" is a misnomer to be sure since "scientific proof" is something that really doesn't exist in the same sense that "logical proof" exists. More than that the next clause is absolutely crazy: "evidence that the universe is earth centered" makes almost no sense from the perspective of what scientific evidence is and from the perspective of earth centered being completely undefined as a perspective or as an absolute position. More than this, the assertion of modern geocentrism about a "geocentric model" (which isn't uniform as you can see from the rest of the article) is unwieldy and doesn't address the main point of modern geocentrism that is that the Earth is the center of the universe and not whether a different perspective can be obtained from looking at things in a different frame of reference. Basically you have a problem of talking about something that is a claim of modern geocentrism rather than modern geocentrism itself. Joshuaschroeder 04:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More inappropriate additions

"Statements from modern scientists which leave geocentrism open."

First of all, this section heading is poorly worded and meaningless. "Geocentrism" is incorrect. "Heliocentrism" might also be considered to be incorrect. As an "ism" it isn't "open".

+ George Ellis agreed that it would be possible to construct a geocentric model that would explain the observations:

Explain "the observations" of what? We have gone into great detail in this article how it is possible to construct a geocentric model. Since we've done that, including a redundant quote by Ellis is simply pointless except to add a propagandist legitimacy to the article. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a repository for quotes that modern geocentrists or anybody thinks are cool or interesting. This doesn't help in describing anything with respect to the issue and so is removed. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this.

This claim, made by Ellis years ago, is actually not true any more. We can disprove a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center. But why should we waste time in the Modern Geocentrism article explaining why this is the case (it has to do with CMB detail observatios)? Since this is only added for effect, the proper thing to do is remove the quote rather than run around in circles. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

“You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”.2

While true back when Ellis was writing this document, such a statement is no longer true. See above criticism. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are simply wrong. Ellis is an expert, Schroeder is a nonentity. How on earth does he expect that earlier references can supersede a later one?138.130.201.227 09:44, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

+ Max Born, famous quantam mechanist and personal frien of Albbert Einstein had this to say (regard general relativity). He said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:

+

+ "...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space.

+

+ Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

Again, we address this in the article much better than Max Born does in this quote, and the comments about whether there is equivalency between Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Einstein are dealt much better there than with this quick bit. There is no reason to repeat ourselves here. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

+ Einstein himslef said:

+

+ "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. -- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.)"

The problem with this quote is it is taken totally out of context. Eintsein right before this declares both Copernicus and Ptolemy to be WRONG! Therefore modern geocentrism is excluded from being correct. The two reference frames are equivalent in Einstein's view, but nobody was claiming that one couldn't coordinate transform between the two of them. Again, since these issues are dealt with at some length in better detail in the article, this statement is justified in removal. Joshuaschroeder 04:30, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss' peculiar axe to grind

Would Ungtss please explain to me what exactly his problem is with the following differences?

My version:

"However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author. As such, they argue that it is bad practice to draw geocentric implications from the verses because the conclusion stems more from the purposes and bias of the interpreter rather than the claimed intent of the author. Much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset, such descriptions can be considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement geocentrism...."

His version:

"However, the majority of biblical scholars, even those who tend to a literal interpretation on other issues, believe that the above passages do not support a universe centered on an immobile Earth, but are instead simply natural descriptions made from the perspective of the author. Much like the use of the present-day use of the words sunrise or sunset, such descriptions can be considered to reflect the most convenient choice of a local coordinate system rather than an endorsement geocentrism. As such, they argue that it is bad practice to draw geocentric implications from the verses because the texts are not about geocentrism, so that the conclusion stems more from the purposes and bias of the interpreter rather than the intent of the author. Finally, the description of the Earth as a footstool in Isaiah is considered by most to be a metaphorical description of God's power, rather than an indication that God literally rests his feet on the Earth."

The reason my version is better is because it is a natural progression from a) what biblical scholars say (they don't believe in the support of geocentricity), b) why (it's a bad practice), and then c) what could be the alternative (a choice of reference system).

Contrast this to Ungtss' version which starts with a) but then moves to c) and then back to b). Furthermore, Ungtss is trying to include the more forceful wording that the conclusion must stem for from the biases of the interpreter rather than the intent of the author without actually being able to say what the intent of the author is. My version is better because it makes explicit that the intent of the author is claimed to be a certain thing by the majority of biblical scholars.

With these considerations in mind, I will now revert. Joshuaschroeder 16:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss has chosen the peculiar route of including both his sentence and my sentence which is a particularly bad editorial choice in my opinion. I have changed it back to my version and hopefully await the time when Ungtss can comment on why he dislikes my version. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please refrain from sarcastic personal remarks in section titles. they are considered personal attacks, and are extremely improper. not that you have any interest in the rules, i realize. in any event, it is you who are breaking up the logical flow of the text, in an effort to water it down. my superior version flows from "these are just natural descriptions from their perspective" to "this is their coordinate system," and concludes with, "this is bad practice." perhaps you should let someone else edit this article? Ungtss 21:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reworked intro

As has been stated time and time again, there is evidence that the universe has no center. It isn't true that it is just a philosophical construct for scientists to conveniently adopt. Therefore I have changed the intro back to what it was previously. Joshuaschroeder 21:27, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then I am free to state there is evidence for an easrth center (redshift quantization, CMB spherical stmmetry, etc.). Without several layers of theory, you cannot claim those as observations for "no center", since you can trace your evidence back to your initial assumption of no center.Truth_Seeker

The CMB is not spherically symmetric (there's a dipole moment) so that's not even close to evidence. Redshift quantization is not seen in large scale structure surveys so that's also no claim. Therefore I don't know what you are referring to above. The article is very clear as to what adopting a geocentric frame means in terms of relativity, physics, and astronomy --> it does not mean that there are observations pointing to the Earth being close to the center of the universe. Please see the above criticism of the introduction for more. You have inadequately answered criticisms of these points and need to investigate the so-called "modern scientific" view if we are going to make any progress. Joshuaschroeder 23:21, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dipole symmetry exists becuase one assumes the earth is rotating. After bcaking out the assumption, the CMB is spherically symmetric.

This is untrue. The dipole is due to motion wrt to the CMB. It is the same anywhere you look in the solar system. WMAP, for example, is at l2.

I am not completely clear whether l2 is orbiting the earth (or the sun) or considered a "fixed point" in space. In any case, when WMAP was launched, certain assumptions were made about what was fixed and what was rotating. Certain assumptions are made about what it is doing in its orbit. Those assumptions are clearly that then earth is spinning and space is fixed (or expanding uniformly) If the universe is rotating, then most likely, the CMB is rotating.Truth_Seeker

There was no assumption about what was fixed and what was rotating. Newtonian dynamics works no matter what frame of reference you chose, as you point out. The CMB's isotropy is well measured and the dipole moment has nothing to do with rotation of the Earth (or the universe). Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The dipole symmetery could equally be due to the universe rotating in the same relative motion.

Not really. We could say that the CMB was moving in a particular direction but it's not rotating. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is not necassarily true (and actually unlikely) if the universe is in fact spinning.Truth_Seeker

The fact of the matter is that the dipole is in a prefered linear direction and not in a rotational direction. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also the statement that redshifts re not seen in large scale structure surveys is quite open to debate.

As someone who works with 2dF and Sloan I can tell you that it most certainly isn't. Would you care to look at the pie-diagrams for more information? Those are simply redshift plots and don't show any quantization at all. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Halton Arp and others disagree with that statement.Truth_Seeker

Halton Arp refuses to consider sky-survey data because he believes that computers aren't able to measure redshifts. He has lost credibility with the advent of sky surveys. While he was once an incredible observer, his continued stick-in-the-mud quasar opinions are just silly now. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem of luminous bridges between quasars and galaxies each having markedly different redshifts adds furhter question to the debate.

Maybe in the past, but telescope technology is good enough now to resolve the host galaxies for quasars. We see the quasars are simply AGN cores at high distances. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, I will refer to Halton arp.Truth_Seeker

And you need to evaluate Halton Arp on the merits of whether he is credible or not. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When Tegmark states:

"...Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center...." THIS PART IS OBSERVATION

Actually, we don't observe the sphere itself but rather observe the finite age of the universe, the limit due to the speed of light, and the CMB. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand the interpretation. That is what I mean by "...THE REST IS FILTERED THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND THEORIES..."

Please tell us what is an assumption. Also, please describe what you think a scientific theory is. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

THE REST IS FILTERED THROUGH SEVERAL LAYERS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND THEORIES [my comments] ...Space continues outside the sphere, but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view [how convenient- sounds like dark matter!].

This isn't dark matter. It's normal matter. Hydrogen isn't dark. It's just opaque when it is a plasma. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I know it is not dark matter! I am just pointing out the parallel betweeen dark matter (96% of the mass of the universe with specific properties of invisibility and gluing the big bang threory together) and the opaque wall that we cannot see!Truth_Seeker

It's a superficial parallel. We know what hydrogen is. The suface of last scattering does not "glue the Big Bang" together. We don't know what the dark matter is. And dark matter is not 96% of the mass of the universe. It is closer to about 90%. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This censorship is frustrating [and may not exist]

What do you mean "may not exist"? Do you know what the surface of last scattering is? Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

, since if we could see merely 380000 light-years beyond it, we would behold the beginning of the universe. Light from still further away would not yet have had time to reach us, but most inflation theories [all depending on redshift] predict that space is infinite. (Note for pundits: These "distances" are merely light travel times. After emitting the CMB 13.3 billion years ago, the sphere above has kept expanding and is currently about 40 billion light-years away; its comoving radius is, was and always will be 40 billion light years.) ..."

I am not criticizing him for doing the filtering, I am just stating that that the theories in questiona have all changed drastically over the last 100 yrs., and will continue ot do so, so we can seperate the observations out and apply other theories to them. Truth_Seeker

I'd like you to be more explicit. Frankly, Truth seeker, you haven't done enough homework to be making proclamations about science. In fact, you have a very poor understanding of the implications of the CMB and other parts of cosmology. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not making proclamations. If the universe is rotating then likely the CMB is not what science purports it to be. I think the biggest weakness in attempting to make the CMB a preferred reference frame (or even claiming it is not rotating) is that we can not yet acertain what is rotating (i.e., earth or universe). Using your language, I suspect we will ultimately find that whether the CMB is stationary (and possibly expanding) or rotating will turn out to be non-falsifiable.Truth_Seeker

Actually, we can measure to see whether the universe is rotating. It isn't. Furthermore, you can have a reference frame where the universe is rotating around the Earth, for example, and the CMB is still exactly what astronomers say it is. So where's your beef? Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to see some statement in the introduction which indicates that direct observation cannot distinguish between Geo, helio, and acentric systems, and that the the forces in the universe can be shown to be consistent were the universe Geocentric (ala Thirring for instance, Mach's principle). We had a nice simple staement about obsrvations and force interactions which was removed.Truth_Seeker

Direct observation can distinguish evidence for the existence of an absolute frame and the applicability of relativity. As it stands, there is no evidence for an absolute frame. End of story. Joshuaschroeder 03:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Which direct observations prove tha earth is not the center? Can you describe a proof which demonstrates the earth is rotating (and can distinguish itself from the universe rotating)Truth_Seeker

Observations of the correct formulation of physics being relativity does that. If spacetime is invariant, then rotation is due only to extended global properties of a body. Since extended global properties of a body are due to body forces and nothing travels the speed of light, then to set up a dynamical system for a rotating universe is necessarily dependent upon considerations of the inertial properties of the matter upon which we sit. They are equivalent pictures in this regard. One can also expect to see spacetime itself rotating, but the topological effects of such a system are not seen. Joshuaschroeder 14:59, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What would be the "topological effects" of a rotating universe? As I understand general relativity there are no local effects, but that does not necessarily rule out global effects. On the other hand, global effects will usually be hard or impossible to observe. Art Carlson 15:23, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

If spacetime had an appropriate global rotational moment (as described in Godel's universe) one effect would be the ability to travel backward in time. The universe would contain infinitely imaged copies of itself. Of course, such copies are not observed. Joshuaschroeder 15:37, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) Godel's universe is one of several hypothetical models. it assumes, for instance, that the universe is infinite. why not another? perhaps one that is not infinite?

2) Even if we live in godel's universe, does the fact that we haven't observed the time effects rule out their existence? in fact, would we be capable of observing them at all? Ungtss 15:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The infinite universe is assumed to remove complications that would make the effects of a rotating universe even more noticeable. If you assume the universe is finite and expanding, the topological effects become even more interesting since you must pass through the singularity or something very similar to the singularity. This would have the effect of reintroducing the peculiar physics of the Planck Era into out causal horizon which would be an exciting probe. If time has a starting point (which isn't clear yet), this might also place a limit on how fast you could get the universe to be rotating.

The fact is, we may live in a rotating universe, but the upper limit on that rotation can be measured due to distortions that occur because of gravitational lensing (no matter if the universe is infinite or finite). The rotation, if it exists, is entirely miniscule. The current upper limit demands that the rotation of the universe is no more than once around every 300 billion years or so. This is far less than the rotation of Truth_Seeker's universe which is 1 time every day. Joshuaschroeder 16:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1) You didn't address my second point, which makes me think you've conceded that even if we live in godel's rotating universe, our inability to observe the time effects does not negate their existence. if i am incorrect, please explain why.

I'm a bit confused by what you are getting at here. Truth_seeker and I were talking above about the claim that I cannot prove that the universe revolves around the Earth once per day. I showed that we can, in fact, prove that through predicted effects. The universe may be rotating very, very slowly, but it isn't rotating as Truth_seeker would have it. Joshuaschroeder 18:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As proof that we're not living in a godel's universe, you cite the prediction of that universe of certain time phenomena, which you say we don't see. i'm asking this: if we did live in his universe, would we be capable of seeing the effects predicted by his universe? if so, what would they look like? what tools would we use to observe them? Ungtss 18:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See below about gravitational lensing.

I'll take this as a concession that your "time anomaly" argument doesn't work. Ungtss 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was a bit glib with my answer. In a rotating universe with a period of one day, one would see time distortion effects on the order of gravitational time dilation into a black hole. A Kerr black hole places limits on the possible angular momentum of an object (including the universe). Joshuaschroeder 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting ... would we be able to perceive those time dilation effects from earth, since we'd be deep inside the time dilation? and since we'd be so close to the event horizon, wouldn't that mean that time was passing much more "quickly" in the distance universe? Ungtss 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2) your point about gravitational lensing would look great in the article, attributed to a cited scholar making it.

I'm not sure that it is applicable. In the case of most modern geocentrists, they reject relativity somewhat wholesale (even while using it to justify their positions). The argument about gravitational lensing would be due to a rotation of the spatial part of the spacetime metric: hardly a "geocentric" rotation at all. In fact, such a rotation would be an intuitively difficult to imagine rotation without a center. Joshuaschroeder 18:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if the geocentric argument is that the universe is rotating, and the counterargument is that the universe cannot be rotating because of those observable effects, i would think such a counterargument would be highly applicable. if geocentrists don't make the "universe is rotating" argument at all, then i can't help but wonder why we're having this discussion.

Depends on what you mean by "universe". The modern geocentrist conception of a firmament or an ether isn't the same as a spacetime metric.

does your gravity lensing argument work within their firmament framework? Ungtss 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The firmament is falsified by Maxwell's Equations which show that Lorentz invariance must be the correct formulation of physical reality. Many modern geocentrists falsely believe that Michelson-Morley establish the speed of light as the benchmark, but they are mistaken. Since the firmament is falsified in such a way, it hardly makes sense to try to look at the purely GR-effect of gravitational lensing in this context. If the modern geocentrist doesn't believe in GR, they necessarily don't believe that physicists have the capability of modeling the universe described by any sort of rotation.Joshuaschroeder 00:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i'm not quite following your reasoning. why, if a geocentrist rejects GR, must he believe that physicists have no capability of modeling the universe described by any sort of rotation? Ungtss 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3) isn't our perception of gravitational lensing due to our perspective? isn't it possible that at enormous distances, the lensing is much more significant than it appears to us, because we have nothing to compare it to? If the distortion is across the entire universe, how would we tell? How we do know where the objects "really are" in order to measure the degree of distortion? Ungtss 16:19, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that lensing of farther objects would distort farther objects more than closer objects: it's not just a singular effect. I suppose one could claim that the farther objects are "reverse" distorted so that, after they are lensed they look just like the nearby objects and there is a corrected-progression of the way physical structure is in such a way that you see no evidence for lensing. However, we would then see peculiar dynamical effects since changing from a shear-map to a physical map does not preserve dynamical variables (i.e. gravity). Then you'd have to through out the way gravity works and if you're going to do that there's no reason to think that the theory would describe a rotating universe properly anyway. Joshuaschroeder 18:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. so suppose that farther objects were lensed more than closer objects. what would that look like in the sky? How would they be distorted? Ungtss 18:18, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They would be distorted by appearing to "shrink" in the direction of the rotation. Joshuaschroeder 19:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Why, if i might ask? Ungtss 19:48, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Certainly. The distortion is caused by the change of a parallel-transport vector that travels a geodesic from the position though a metric that is distorted by a time dependent relationship of the angles on the sky. In other words, what starts out as 1 degree on the sky becomes more or less than one degree depending on the details of the rotation as you travel outward from the light-emitting event. This is the horizontal analog to redshifting in an expanding universe. Joshuaschroeder 20:38, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! but i'm missing one element -- why does the "leading edge" of the object experience more distortion than the "trailing edge," so as to be shrunk? Ungtss 00:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Truth Seeker reversion

Can you explain here what you mean by "jargon" and why you reverted Art's very thoughtful edits? Joshuaschroeder 18:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was motivated, Truth seeker, by your wish to further emphasize the fact that there is no way to prove geocentrism false. This is more than a statement about the current state of science or getting new tools or being able to think up new experiments. It is also not a question of the "philosophical tenets" of scientists or what they "consider" geocentrism to be. If, as we both agree, there really is no way to disprove geocentrism, then geocentrism just doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory. That is why I must insist that your edit is not correct. I also do not see why you think my version is not NPOV. You might have a point that some terms are rather technical, but at least they are wiki-linked for those who want to understand them better. Art Carlson 18:56, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I should add that I am following the discussion above with great interest. Joshuaschroeder seems to be saying that geocentrism, at least with respect to the rotational state of the universe, can in some sense be disproved. If that is so, then maybe the hypothesis of the daily rotation of the universe really is a (disproven) scientific theory. In that case the article will have to be rewritten at several points. Art Carlson 19:01, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

I don't know what the goecentrists think of taking Godel's solution as a good guess at the rotation of the universe. After all, the rotation of the universe in a metric sense may not be real, according to them, because there is no such thing as an invariant metric. Joshuaschroeder 19:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In light of the above, here's my concern with the intro. you cannot say that geocentrism is an unfalsifiable position, but then claim that acentrism is a scientific opinion. either both are unfalsifiable, one is falsified and the other is science, or both have been falsified. seeker's claim is that acentrism is selected for philosophical reasons, and he has quotes from prominent scientists to support his claim. which shall we have, then:

1) geocentrism has been falsified in favor of acentrism, which is the scientific position, or

2) geocentrism and acentrism are unfalsifiable philosophical positions, or

3) geocentrism and acentrism are both wrong. ??? Ungtss 19:42, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Option 1) is the correct one. I have been struggling with the into. too, Ungtss, for that very reason. However, in the sense that one cannot falsify a belief held on faith, one could consider "geocentrism" to be unfalsifiable. It might be a kind of Omphalos argument. I don't know that such is clear, however. Joshuaschroeder 19:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. now in reading the article, i don't see any evidence that makes the assertion impossible. i see statements that it's unfalsifiable, statements about relativity, and statements that "there is no evidence to support it." but i see no statements that it has been falsified -- that is, shown to be false. can you point to this argument so we can bring it to prominence? Ungtss 19:53, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Until Joshuaschroeder convinces me otherwise, I claim that

(i) geocentrism is unfalsifiable, and

(ii) acentrism is falsifiable but as yet unfalsified

There is no symmetry between the positions. To begin with, geocentrism makes no clear and consistent definition of "center", so no matter what we observe, geocentrists can claim the Earth is the center of the universe as seen by God. Acentrism, for a similar reason is not the way scientists phrase the argument. The cosmological principle talks about "homogeneity". If we look closely at the universe and find homogeneity everywhere we look, then we still don't know if the universe is totally homogeneous, or if we might eventually find some Earth-centered phenomena if we look a bit closer. That is, in an acentric universe it is impossible to disprove geocentrism. On the other hand, if we ever do find something, say a class of quasars that are all at exactly the same distance from the Earth, then that will be a proof that acentrism/homogeneity is false. That is, in a geocentric universe it could be possible to disprove acentrism. (We might consider geocentrism to be falsified if we discover some class of objects centered on another galaxy, but what if some classes are centered on another galaxy and some others are centered on the Earth? We are back to the ambiguity of what we mean by "center".) Art Carlson 21:22, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

If acentrism is falsifiable, how would you falsify it as against "non-earth-centrism" -- that is, the possibility that the universe has a center but we're not it? Ungtss 21:46, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your formulation, Art, in terms of an idealization of geocentrism as a faith-based claim. As to an absolute frame, this is falsified in some instances, but until all instances of all possible absolute frames can be discussed, in some sense this idealization cannot be falsified. Joshuaschroeder 21:52, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes. that's the ticket. can we run with that? wait -- i think i misread you. josh, are you saying that geocentrism is unfalsifiable but acentrism is falsifiable but not yet falsified? Ungtss 21:54, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand your confusion. I am saying that a certain type of geocentrism is unfalsifiable--that is the geocentrism that is based purely on adopting a frame of one's choosing. I'm not convinced that all modern geocentrists hold to this type of geocentrism, but some might. Joshuaschroeder 00:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. perhaps our analysis of the problem should distinguish between the forms of geocentrism which have been falsified from those which are unfalsifiable. Ungtss 00:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "falsify against" something? A hypothesis does not have to be distinguishable from every other hypothesis to be falsifiable. Nevertheless it is conceivable that we one day look at the data and discover that redshifts are not quantized as seen from the Earth, but they are quantized with respect to the location of the Spiral Galaxy ESO 269-57.

This whole discussion is made more difficult by the tendency of modern geocentrists to argue both ways. First they point out that Einstein, Mach, and Thirring have proven that a geocentric frame of reference allows a 100% consistent formulation of the laws of physics. (In which case there is no need to define "center" and no way to falsify geocentrism.) Then they come back saying that Einstein, Michelson/Morley, and Hubble are all wrong anyway and there are observations proving geocentrism. (In which case their position can be and has been falsified.) To do it right, we should also be distinguishing between the hypotheses that (1) the Earth is the center of the universe, (2) the Earth is not moving through space, and (3) the Earth is not rotating. The arguments are slightly different in each case.

Despite these difficulties, I think the article is pretty good. The only thing that really worries me is Josh's statement that there is an experimental upper limit on the rotational velocity of the universe. That seems to contradict the statement from general relativity (as I understand it), that a "rotating" frame of reference is exactly equivalent to a "stationary" one. This makes a big difference in the science of the article. I hope we can straighten it out. Art Carlson 07:06, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

The difference is in the metric formulation of the Einstein Equations. There is a rotationally invariant set of solutions that describe the universe and there are a set of solutions that are not rotationally invariant. Godel's universe falls into the set that is not rotationally invariant. A universe that is seen from the perspective of a rotating Earth (or a universe rotating around the Earth) would still be rotationally invariant because the metric would have no off-diagonal angular dependences. I'm pretty sure most modern geocentrists are not dealing with metric formulations of a globally rotating solution to Einstein's Equations. I may be wrong however. Joshuaschroeder 02:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does "off-diagonal" mean here? Does it mean rotational shear? Am I correct that, for the simple case of a uniform (but not necessarily constant) angular velocity about an axis, there is no way to determine limits on the angular velocity experimentally? Art Carlson 07:31, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

<<What do you mean "falsify against" something?>>

art's assertion is that acentrism is the "scientific" position on the topic, because it is falsifiable but has not been falsified. i was wondering if "a-different-center-than-earth-ism" might be equally falsifiable and equally not falsified, making it an equally "scientific" viewpoint. Ungtss 11:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Homogeneity" and "isotropy" need to be better specified, but they do have operational definitions and are falsifiable. But what does "center" mean? What does "absolutely motionless" mean? Unless operational definitions can be supplied, then geocentrism, acentrism, and "a-different-center-than-earth-ism" are equally meaningless, non-falsifiable, and non-scientific. (That was a good question.) Art Carlson 14:24, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly:). Ungtss 14:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what would it take?

What would it take for the insertion of a single sentence in the biblical section that says no more and no less than this: "Most biblical scholars think it's bad practice in biblical interpretation to draw implications from verses where the verses are not directly about the topic in question, but only peripherally related to it?" Ungtss 01:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's the current version of this sentence: "As such, they argue that it is bad practice to draw geocentric implications from the verses because the conclusion stems more from the purposes and bias of the interpreter rather than the claimed intent of the author."

Now I like this version better than your own because your own assumes some neutral and absolute ability to discern exactly what is directly related to a topic in question and what is peripherally related to it. If you are not claiming to have such a thing, the statement is trivial and shouldn't be included. If you are claiming to have such a thing, you need to specify what it is. (Specifically, how is it different from the sentence currently included?) Joshuaschroeder 02:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay. How about i attribute the feared "absolute ability to identify purpose:"

"The majority of biblical scholars hold that there is no reason to believe that the author of these verses intended to make dogmatic statements about the location of the Earth, and as such it is bad practice to indirectly draw geocentric implications from the verses." Ungtss 02:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much better and I like the location you put the phrase in the paragraph. I changed the wording slightly because I don't quite understand what "bad practice" means. I think "improper" is clearer. Joshuaschroeder 17:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, Josh. You're removing the reasoning, and leaving a bald conclusion. This has been your habit on hundreds of my edits, and it leads to inferior articles. what is it going to take to insert the reasoning -- the idea that if you look at the text in context and have a look at the purpose, there's no reason to believe they were intended to give us doctrine? but more importantly, why do you insist on removing it? Ungtss 22:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What you see as reasoning I see as preaching. Joshuaschroeder 16:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is my new version: "It is argued that the context of the passages does not seem to indicate that the author intended them to be dogmatic statements regarding the location of the Earth in the universe, so that claiming implications of geocentrism is improper." Note that I removed bits about "there is no reason to believe" which isn't reasoning at all. Joshuaschroeder 16:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

that's cute that you see it as preaching. i see it as a clear statement that "there is no reason to believe this." perhaps it would also be preaching to say, "there is no reason to believe in creationism." hmm? Ungtss 16:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course there are reasons to believe in creationism. As to whether those reasons are scientific, that's another issue. Joshuaschroeder 16:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ungtss, it is clear that the implications that geocentrists draw from these are "direct" implications. If you read what they write, that's their claim. While you think they are "indirect", that's beside the point. I'm removing "indirect" which is true and NPOV.

Your rewording of the context of the passages providing no reason to believe is much better. Joshuaschroeder 16:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. i'm glad we've passed one more threshold. however, indirect is also necessary. my point is this. a statement directly addressing the issue is, "The Earth is at the center of the universe." An statement from which an implication can be indirectly drawn is, "The Sun rises." Geocentrists definitely think the implications are direct. people who disagree (which includes most people, the people whose opinion we are trying to represent here including AiG) believe that these are indirect implications. there is no reason to exclude this view. it is an important aspect of biblical interpretation, not to mention good old fashioned statutory construction. you have to learn how npov works, schroeder. when a viewpoint is stated, it stands on its own terms, not on the terms of those who reject it. Ungtss 17:08, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While it is true that many (but perhaps not all, you haven't shown that to be the case) believe the statements are "indirect", that should be stated as a claim rather than phrased as a description of the statements themselves. I don't object to someone talking about the statements being "indirect", only the description being necessarily assumed to be that way.Joshuaschroeder 23:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i realized that and i think you have an excellent point -- i think explicitly stating and attributing the argument makes for clearer and more npov language, and i thank you for pointing out that bad writing habit of mine. does the current edit conform with that principle? Ungtss 23:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Much better, thank you. Joshuaschroeder 00:02, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

There is some misunderstanding here. Geocentrists do not state that the Bible teaches earth is at the center (at least not directly- there are some implications of that). Rather, what has been established is that the Bible teaches that the earth is immobile. Also what has been established is that the sun moves around the earth. What the Bible really teaches is Geostationism (and solar "kineticism" to coin a phrase). Geocentrism is led to from the teaching on geostationism. I suppose it is possible to create other geostationary theories, but to reconcile them with observations may be difficult, and from what I can see would lead to a form of geocentrism. Most geocentrists interpret geostationism to mean the earth does not translate nor rotate. A very few allow rotation.

Also, the Cathoic viewpoint is bolstered by a consensus of Church Fathers, all who taught geocnectrism. They all agreed on the geostationary view point, arguining it against the Greek heliocentrists long before Corpenicus. Within Catholicism this is a very significant fact. Also, three Popes (under guidance of the Holy Spirit) made official statements against heliocentrism from the geo-stationary / solar-kineticism Biblical interpretation perspective. TheProtestant (sola-scriptura) case is actually weaker, since they rely on the inerrancy of the KJV translation for interpretations, and also have no teaching authority (as the Catholic magisterium does) other than personal opinion (leading to any interpretation you could want). Still the Protestant geocentrists have contributed significantly.Truth_Seeker

thank you for those fantastic substantive edits -- could you clarify which Church fathers made explicit geocentric statements, and what they were, or provide a link to that effect? Ungtss 23:09, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The three Popes are Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII.

(sources Dorothy Stimson. The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican theory of the Universe. Peter Smith, 1972. Originally published 1917. & Robert Sungenis www.catholicintl.com)

“At the meeting of the Congregation on February 25, the Pope ordered Cardinal Bellarmin to summon Galileo and, in the presence of a notary and witnesses lest he should prove recusant, warn him to abandon the condemned opinion and in every way to abstain from teaching, defending or discussing it; if he did not acquiesce, he was to be imprisoned. The Secret Archives of the Vatican contain a minute reporting this interview, in which the Cardinal is said to have ordered Galileo to relinquish this condemned proposition, “nec eam de caetero quovis modo, teneat, doceat aut defendat, verbo aut scriptis,” and that Galileo promised to obey....

The Cardinal replied: We, Robert Cardinal Bellarmin, having heard that Signor Galileo was calumniated and charged...but only was informed of the declaration made by his Holiness and published by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures and therefore cannot be defended nor held (non si possa difendere ne tenere). And in witness of this we have written and signed these presents with our own hand, this 26 day of May, 1616. Robert Cardinal Bellarmin.”

Here is Stimson on Urban VIII:

“On the 23 of September, he [Urban VIII] ordered the Inquisitor of Florence to notify Galileo (in the presence of concealed notary and witnesses in case he were ‘recusant’) to come to Rome and appear before the Sacred Congregation before the end of the next month.”

“by order of the Pope, Galileo was once again interrogated, this time under threat of torture. Once again he declared the opinion of Ptolemy true and indubitable and said he did not hold and had not held this doctrine of Copernicus after he had been informed of the order to abandon it. ‘As for the rest,’ he added, ‘I am in your hands, do with me as you please.’ ‘I am here to obey.’ Then by the order of the Pope, ensued Galileo’s complete abjuration on his knees in the presence of the full Congregation coupled with his promise to denounce other heretics (i.e., Copernicans). In addition, because he was guilty of the heresy of having held and believed a doctrine declared and defined as contrary to the Scriptures, he was sentenced to ‘formal imprisonment’ at the will of the Congregation, and to repeat the seven penitential Psalms every week for three years.”

we saw that already in the time of Paul V the statement from Bellarmine:

“...the declaration made by his Holiness and PUBLISHED by the Sacred Congregation of the Index, in which it is stated that the doctrine attributed to Copernicus, that the earth moves around the sun and that the sun stands in the center of the world without moving from the east to the west, is contrary to the Holy Scriptures...” So here we have the condemnation of Copernicanism, specifically, “PUBLISHED” by the Sacred Congregation under a “declaration MADE BY HIS HOLINESS” that Galileo’s teaching is “contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” As Andrew White...shows:

“And again, what Galileo was made, BY EXPRESS ORDER OF Pope Urban, and by the action of the Inquisition under threat of torture, to abjure in 1633, was ‘the error and heresy of the movement of the earth.’” Stimson further states:

“Pope Urban had no intention of concealing Galileo’s abjuration and sentence. Instead, he ordered copies of both to be sent to all inquisitors and papal nuncios that they might notify all their clergy and especially all the professors of mathematics and philosophy within their districts, particularly those at Florence, Padua and Pisa...From Wilna in Poland, Cologne, Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, as well as from all Italy, came the replies of the papal officials stating that the order had been obeyed. He [Urban VIII] evidently intended to leave no ground for a remark like that of Fromundus about the earlier condemnation.

“True, the Pope [Urban VIII] did not formally sign the decree against the Copernican theory then; but this came later. In 1664 Alexander VII prefixed to the Index containing the condemnations of the works of Copernicus and Galileo and ‘all books which affirm the motion of the earth’ a papal bull signed by himself, binding the contents of the Index upon the consciences of the faithful.”

According to the CAtholic Encyclopedia, the decrees were not infallible:

Here is a quote from one of Robert Sungenis' challenges:

"According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, here’s what the Church did: The Inquisition of 1615 in Rome declared the position of Galileo to be “scientifically false, and anti-Scriptural or heretical, and that he must renounce it” (Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 6, p. 344). Following this was a decree from the Congregation of the Index on March 5, 1616, prohibiting various heretical works, and among them were those advocating the Copernican system. As for the Pope at that time, Paul V, “there is no doubt that he fully approved the decision, having presided at the session of the Inquisition, wherein the matter was discussed and decided” (Ibid, p. 344). To Galileo’s dismay, the next Pope, Urban VIII, would not annul the judgment of the Inquisition.

The Encyclopedia concludes: That both these pontiffs [Paul V and Urban VIII] were convinced anti-Copernicans cannot be doubted, nor that they believed the Copernican system to be unscriptural and desired its suppression. The question is, however, whether either of them condemned the doctrine ex cathedra. This, it is clear, they never did” (Ibid, p. 345).

So despite what anyone says, the Catholic Church has never endorsed the Copernican theory and no pope has ever annulled the decrees of Paul V or Urban VIII. "

The Bull is Speculatores Domus Israel, Alexander VII, 1664

This sums it up:

From St. Bellarmine (bold emphasis mine, capitals Sungenis):

“...speaking hypothetically, and not absolutely, as I have always believed Copernicus spoke. for to say that, assuming the earth moves and the sun stands still, all the appearances are saved better than with eccentrics and epicycles, is to speak well; there is no danger in this, and it is sufficient for mathematicians. But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, IS A VERY DANGEROUS THING, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false...I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary...BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH DEMONSTRATION; NONE HAS BEEN SHOWN TO ME. It is not the same thing to show that the APPEARANCES are saved by assuming that the sun is at the center and the earth is in the heavens, as it is to demonstrate that the sun REALLY is in the center and the earth is in the heavans"

To date no such demonstration has been made.

This work claims Papl infallibility: "Pontifical Decrees Against the Doctrine of Earth’s Movement" by Fr. William W. Roberts. England. (http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/rbkseg1.pdf, http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/rbkseg2.pdf) Truth_Seeker

Modern Geocentrism a matter of faith?

Seeing as how many modern geocentrists believe that modern geocentrism is a matter of faith, how can the claim that modern geocentrism isn't a matter of faith be substantiated wrt papal infallibilty? Joshuaschroeder 02:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

once again, schroeder, you are criticizing an argument from outside the argument. this depends on one's definition of "matters of faith." most people don't think that whether the earth moves or not is a matter of faith. other people do. npov provides for both opinions. please stop. Ungtss 02:10, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So if there is controversy on this topic, we should be explicit that this is the controversy. As the sentence stands right now it sounds like everybody agrees it isn't a matter of faith. Joshuaschroeder 18:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a faith dimension to this (though it is not necassary) and a science dimension. The faith dimension for most is the motivation to consider geocentrism. Without explicit faith based reasons to consider it, it makes little difference. The science dimension is that we cannot distinguish between rotation of the universe and rotation of the earth. Until such time as we can stand outside the universe and look in, or come up with some critical demonstrations, it is an open question. One could be a geocentrists for both reasons (most) or either one alone.Truth_Seeker

i don't ascribe to your viewpoint myself, truth seeker, but i've come to have a great respect for your point of view by reading your postings. thank you for expanding my world a little:). Ungtss 05:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Our resource of geocentrism

Truth seeker, there's been a great deal of debate about whether Geocentrism is a type of creationism, so as to belong on the creationism template. Schroeder has argued that it should be, because it relates to "how God created the universe," and is based on scripture, just like creationism. Two anons and I have argued that it should not, because it relates not to the creation of the universe, but to the location of the earth within it, and because one can be a geocentrist and an old earth/young earth/evolutionary creationist, or not a creationist at all, meaning that it is a belief on an independent issue. As a geocentrist, what do you think? Ungtss 14:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd also point out that all modern geocentrists are creationists in the sense that they reject scientific consensus explanations for the origin of the universe, the Earth, and life. Do you, Truth Seeker, know of any modern geocentrists who are not creationists? Joshuaschroeder 16:07, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd point out that the above argument is both irrelevent and factually incorrect. There are people who are geocentrists who are not creationists, but even if there weren't, the fact that two beliefs are closely correlated does not make one a "type" of the other, any more than the fact that all creationists are theists makes creationism a type of theism. Ungtss 16:11, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)