“ Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own. ”
—Editor of Nature Magazine, Paul C. W. Davies. (Nature, 273:336, 1978.)
At the end of each year, and the beginning of the new year, many people reflect on the past, present and look to the future… Maybe someone will be able to reflect and provide me, and possibly others, with the answer to this question:
Why is there so much deception in the world of science?
I’m being generous. The center of the universe is worth a separate OP…
Good question, phoodoo! That’s why in said near…😊
In another possible scenario, in a positively curved universe would resemble a 4D finite sphere without detectable edges. The CMBs could point to such universe, if the big bang model is abandoned…
In such universe, two spaceships travelling in straight, parallel lines, would actually intersect before ending up back where they started…
.
J-Mac,
How would such a universe create the illusion of us orbiting the sun elliptically?
Why hasn’t the Michelson-Morley experiment been done in space (in the absence of gravity)?
How about on the moon? Wouldn’t those experiments resolve a lot of issues?
So many expeditions sent and stations set up in space and nobody even suggested to repeat the famous experiments?…
If someone is into conspiracy theories, these ones are goodones to explore…
What are you talking about, exactly? Be more specific. We’ve talked about many models…
To humor you, phoodoo, let’s do that.
Let’s also stipulate, for the sake of argument, that the rubber disc is finite, okay?
It therefore has a middle! The horror, the horror!
What does phoodoo observe as the rubber disc is uniformly stretched?
phoodoo observes that all points on the rubber disc are moving directly away from him at a velocity that is proportional to their distance from him; v = d x H. phoodoo concludes that he is therefore at the middle of the rubber disc. How could it be otherwise?
Over 12 billion light years away, in the Baby Boom Galaxy, there are LGM. They also observe that all points on the rubber disc are moving directly away from them at a velocity that is proportional to their distance from them; v = d x H*. Rather than make stupid claims about being in the middle of anything, they note that that 14 billion years ago, everything was very close together.
*Not knowing Edwin Hubble, the LGM called the constant something else.
P.S. Re-read this comment before accusing me of changing my story.
Specifically, daylength, astronomical twilight and shifts in solar noon are accurately predicted by assuming the earth is in elliptical orbit around the sun. The speed of this orbit accords with gravitational theory given particular masses for earth and sun. If one reverses that – the sun is in orbit around the earth – then we have introduced a different kind of gravitation to account for the observations – not the gravitational force we observe at the surface, but a fiddled, non-observed gravitation. That or we make the Sun’s mass a fraction that of the earth, which would make it fly apart …
Add in the moon and the planets, and this force has to act even more strangely still.
Allan Miller,
I could agree or disagree. You AN change the reference frame, cook the math, etc. and both can’t be disproved by observations, as George Ellis claims.
Why?
Then it becomes absurd second-spliff dorm-room philosophy. I can’t ‘disprove by observation’ that the universe did not start 10 seconds ago, or that angels aren’t actually shoving the planets around in imitation of a heliocentric solar system. But why would I subscribe to such notions? If you need unknown physics to pull Ellis’s trick, when known physics does the job perfectly satisfactorily given a shift of what goes round what, you’re in the realm of wankery, not philosophy.
I contend that the intact, shining sun is an observation that refutes Ellis.
It is easy to say ‘I can change the math’ in some fuzzy way. So do it. You don’t just ‘change the reference frame’, you need to change the behaviour of matter such that the earth is much more massive than we measure it to be, and the sun much less, while still able to hold together its hydrogen and ignite nuclear fusion. Bet you can’t.
Not necessarily… all we need is an absolute reference frame…
CMBs imply the earth could be such a reference but we may need ether to explain the other dark unknowns…
If the big bang cosmology is abandoned, the physics could work and the quantum gravity could be formulated… but Einstein’s spacetime needs another kind of theory first…
It seems the speed of light needs to cease to be constant…
There is a lot of resistance to either…
You are being unreasonable…
Many people are working on both the models and the math…
For instance?
What’s your question, exactly???
Who are the many people who are working on the hypothesis that the Sun orbits the Earth???
Hey, J-Mac,
When we observe stellar parallax and secular parallax, is the proximal stars that are moving, or the distant ones? Or both?
Why do they wibble* in that particular manner?
You would gain a modicum of credibility if your answer were more specific than a vague, hand-wavey, “people are working on both the models and the math”. Could you give us an example of the math?
*technical term
I don’t think anybody officially will admit that they are working on THIS particular model… The best you are going to get, officially, is that the geocentric model SHOULD be considered, just like Ellis, Weinberg and others have suggested…
What many are working on are different models of the universe… but reluctantly would admit the geocentric model…
People like me, Sungenis, etc. Can admit it, but who would care?
If you read cosmology/physics literature, like I do regularly, you’d get a sense f frustration with the current model that requires 96-99% of the dark unknowns…
I will be doing some OPs on the theme, so i will try to implement the known scientists, who hint geocentric model SHOULD be worked on…
DNA_Jock,
No
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our troubles will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. 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.”
– A. Einstein and L. Infeld, The Evolution of Physics
Why nobody followed Einstein up with the math?
Sungenis? Isn’t he the guy who said that the centrifugal force on the ‘rotating Sun’ was a enormous 1.18 x 10^34 Newtons, and when called out for his math error, came back with this schoolboy howler:
Should or could? Ellis apparently has written papers in which he accepts GR.
I don’t doubt that the search for better models is ongoing, new observations and tools reveal unknown unknowns. I do wonder why you think people are working on the geocentric model and are reluctant to admit it rather than dismissing it out of hand as a waste of time with the difficulties demonstrating the Earth is even the center of the Solar System much less the Universe.
I am sure your children care. It is nice to have a family hobby.
Sounds like job security . And you think overturning that with a model that has 99.99999% darks unknowns is a step forward ?
That would be great, thanks.
Might be more persuasive of their commitment to the hypothesis to show they are actively spending their precious time in development and answering the obvious objections rather then musing geocentricism it is not logically impossible and iif someone else should/ would the heavy lifting, that would be the best way to go.
Math humor is hilarious.
Didn’t “CoolHardLogic” on youtube conclusively demonstrate the utter lunacy of geocentrism years ago?
I don’t care which model: as long as it is the truth, and not a worldview determined by preconceived ideas…
Isn’t Einstein the guy who said nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and, if it does, it must be quantum woo? 😉
Therefore, we must disregard everything else he said, as we should, including relativity…
Apparently? And? This should stop him from the scientific progress?
No? So, how do you explain the axis of evil within the current bigbang model?
Ah, you sweep it under the rug and pray it will explain itself? Or, you cook the math and save cosmology for the sake of philosophical views…
Yeah, that’s true science…
And nothing, he seems not as eager to replace Einstein in his model.
So, he should be like you, and others here, like some phoney theists here, and not care what the truth is?
Thanks!
Why should the Big Bang model predict something like that? It also doesn’t predict the existence of the Solar System, or Alpha Centauri, or french fries, but that’s no reason to considered it falsified
‘Many people’ huh? Well, I’m convinced…
By some strange coincidence, your ‘worldview not determined by preconceived ideas’ harks back to 3000 year old thinking. 🤔 You’re just being contrary for the sake of it. If an idea’s non-mainstream, that’s all it takes for you to grasp it like a drowning man a log.
Curious how people manage to send spaceships to the outer planets, using heliocentric geometry. Almost as if reality were indeed heliocentric. But no, they should think out the box, and … do exactly the same thing.
Still awaiting an answer on the Sun. If it’s orbiting us, it’s less massive than us. If it’s less massive than us, how does it remain intact, and ignite fusion? The sun could not exist in a geocentric solar system. Or at least, I can’t see what trick of physics would permit it.
DNA_Jock,
To humor you, let me make sure I understand you correctly, are you saying it doesn’t matter in the model of the universe if there is an actual center, because there would be no way to know that actual center, because it would look the same everywhere anywhere?
Because if that is what you really want to say, great, let’s deal with that problem, and I can show you why no model would have it that way.
I believe both orbit around their center of gravity, which i believe is within the radius of the sun. But I’m not sure of that.
Please do.
You didn’t answer the question. If I didn’t know you better I might think you are intentionally refusing to commit to your own comments so you can retreat from them later. If I didn’t know you better.
phoodoo,
Yes, phoodoo, even if there were a center, you would be unable to say you were at it.
Show me how NO model would have it that way.
That is true according to our present understanding of gravity, not sure if J-mac accepts that understanding.
DNA_Jock,
Well first off, use your imagination (it’s 2020 you don’t even need the math) what do you think happens to the middle when the space expands?
What do you think you would be able to see?
phoodoo,
I think we do need the math. I have explained this to you three times (in 3D with math and twice in 2D conceptually) and, from your failure to respond with anything except vague goofy assertions, I am pretty confident that you don’t understand the geometry, nor the simple fact that the LGM will also observe the same “everything is moving away from me at a speed proportional to distance” that phoodoo / Warty Bliggins observes.
Your apparent determination to NOT understand anything that might disturb you is truly impressive. This is reminiscent of the relativity debacle.
DNA_Jock,
Your claim of retroactively winning arguments that you didn’t win, although consistent in its absurdity, doesn’t impress me.
We already did the math, and you decided you didn’t like the math at that time so you wanted to change the same, to close. That’s where your math breaks down. If you do the math, everything starts at zero. Since zero don’t exist, then at 0,0 nothing exists. There how’s that math? The middle doesn’t exist.
DNA_Jock,
So tell me Jock, from 0,0 to 1,1, how many times has the distance doubled? How about from 0,0 to. .5,.5 have we doubled less, more, the same..?
What zero times zero, I always forget. Bad grade school education I guess. Is one times zero more or less?
Yes. So in a geocentric universe, the centre of gravity would be within the earth, either making the earth the more massive by a long way, or requiring some different gravitational constant out there than here – which makes no sense, since if weaker per atom out there, the sun would not ignite, or even stay intact, requiring more fiddling that I doubt would stack up.
Hell of a lot of trouble to go to to get rid of dark energy.
Allan Miller,
It all makes sense if we abandon General Relativity, The Copernican Principle, Darwinism, atheism, logic and vaccines.
It doesn’t matter what I accept. The question remains: which model fits the data.?
No model SHOULD be dismissed, because it places the earth, us, in the special place in the universe.
Philosophy should not supersede the evidence because the evidence makes some nervous about its implication…This is not science. It’s cooked science. Scientists who lie to masses belong in hell…
This may be true… That’s why some are trying to return to ether model to explain the dark energy…. Unfortunately, the return to dark ages of ether, once laughed out of science is not easy…Few are willing to take the risk…Look at the resistance from you and others on this blog…
According to the math of relativity, the expansion of the universe should be many orders of magnitude faster…
Anybody knows the exact math???
So, why keep patching up relativity with such a humongous discrepancy?
That resistance is based on a rational argument you haven’t even begun to address.
How does gravity work in a geocentric universe?
Why does an assumption of heliocentric geometry work in practical terms if the solar system is not heliocentric?
It cost money to send Voyager out into space; heliocentric geometry got it where it needed to be. There’s a bottom line value to the assumptions.
This isn’t just a static perceptual shift, but a substantial change in motion, in dynamics. Comets – how do they work? They appear to orbit the sun, tails pointing away. Yet geocentrically they orbit us instead, in an orbit which keeps changing direction and distance eccentrically …. what force mediates those changes? I’d love to see a working geocentric orrery, all motion accounted for.
Why not take the simple, Newtonian route? Where does the evidence lead?