No Copernican Principle, no dark energy needed

Why would cosmologists invent dark energy, if a simpler, geocentric model, works without it? What purpose does the Copernican Principle serve? Why would cosmologists try to hide the fact that the Earth could be in the center of the universe?

“ 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?

0

257 thoughts on “No Copernican Principle, no dark energy needed

  1. BruceS: A Google search of “geocentrism and the bible” finds a lot of site that say it does, and back that view up with quotes (but it also finds some that deny the literal bible support geocentrism).

    So, what’s your point since you admit you were wrong about my views?
    Google search? Some sites? Really? 😉

    0
  2. BruceS: If that is not your reason for appearing to believe in geocentrism, then fine.

    You are wrong again… I only follow the argument wherever it may lead… geocentric or heliocentric…

    The Bible seems to imply the Sun and the Moon stopped, but I don’t believe they did literally, even if geocentric model is true… I’m willing to accept the criticisms from both sides…

    0
  3. J-Mac: You are wrong again… I only follow the argument wherever it may lead… geocentric or heliocentric…The bible seem to imply the Sun and the moon stopped, but I don’t believe they did literally, even if geocentric model is true… I’m willing to accept the criticismsfrom both sides…

    For someone who ‘follows the argument where it leads’, you seem remarkably impervious to counterarguments. If the solar system is geocentric, what force accounts for planetary motion? And why would we prefer geocentrism to, say, Plutocentrism?

    0
  4. BruceS: It does not change my view on the futility of arguing with you for many other reasons, which I have provided in posts on eg QM.

    Really? Do you understand quantum mechanics, fully? You must be special, because experts still argue about QM. I only explore the possibilities that QM provides, such the contradictions in relativity, spactime etc.

    You seem to view it as wrong… You haven’t provided one reason why I should care about it other than your preconceived notions of quantum mechanics and it’s preferred interpretations…
    Do you remember my thought experiment on quantum entanglement with the pedal shaft?

    0

  5. Allan Miller: For someone who ‘follows the argument where it leads’, you seem remarkably impervious to counterarguments

    As are you, just in case you haven’t noticed…

    Allan Miller: If the solar system is geocentric, what force accounts for planetary motion?

    To quote Weinberg, “…the spinning galaxies would create a force akin to gravity … which relativity allows…”
    Need the link, again?

    Allan Miller: And why would we prefer geocentrism to, say, Plutocentrism?

    If relativity allows…

    0
  6. J-Mac: As are you, just in case you haven’t noticed…

    You haven’t made a counterargument, merely said ‘Einstein’ a few times. So in a relativistic frame, what puts Geocentrism above (say) Plutocentrism?

    To quote Weinberg, “…the spinning galaxies would create a force akin to gravity … which relativity allows…”

    How is that relevant to the Solar System?

    if relativity allows

    If relativity allows what? It doesn’t allow us to prefer one over the other. Both are equally valid.

    0
  7. Allan Miller: You haven’t made a counterargument, merely said ‘Einstein’ a few times.

    So, if you think Einstein was wrong, prove it, instead of handwaving!

    Allan Miller: How is that relevant to the Solar System?

    You should have clicked the link!

    Allan Miller: If relativity allows what? It doesn’t allow us to prefer one over the other. Both are equally valid.

    EXACTLY! Why should yours be preferred?

    0
  8. J-Mac: Who gets to render the judgment?The preconceived notions? Because?

    Well, you can use preconceived notions, which have the great advantage of being simple.

    Many people use observation, recognizing that observation can be difficult, misleading, and incomplete. These drawbacks inevitably result in misinterpretation and dispute, which are generally corrected or resolved by better observations, as they become available.

    Preconceived notions, as we see here, solve ALL of these problems at once, with the single disadvantage of being wrong (and not correctable).

    0
  9. J-Mac: The Bible seems to imply the Sun and the Moon stopped,

    It states that it is God’s word that it happened.

    but I don’t believe they did literally, even if geocentric model is true…

    Ok, but you wanted to know where in the Bible the geocentric model was supported.Not whether you can pick and chose which part of the Bible to believe.

    I’m willing to accept the criticisms from both sides…

    Perhaps answering the objections rather than throwing stuff against the wall would be better still.

    0
  10. J-Mac: So, if you think Einstein was wrong, prove it, instead of handwaving!

    One good handwave deserves another.

    You should have clicked the link!

    There wasn’t a link to click.

    EXACTLY! Why should yours be preferred?

    Relativistically, it shouldn’t. But then, I’m not the one making the relativistic argument. Your thesis is that geocentrism, specifically, has been resurrected by Einstein. Whereas the earth has no more privilege as an observation point than a speck of dust in the rings of Saturn, or a point 300km below Mars’s N. Pole. It doesn’t do what you want it to do, ie preferentially support geocentrism.

    0
  11. Allan Miller: Your thesis is that geocentrism, specifically, has been resurrected by Einstein.

    And he also thinks that QM has disproved Einstein’s GR, but apparently self-consistency is not a requirement when you’re batshit crazy

    0
  12. Flint: Your god is a solution in search of evidence that there is a problem (and not finding any).

    You mean like the existence of things, that kind of evidence?

    0
  13. phoodoo: You mean like the existence of things, that kind of evidence?

    Is your god a thing? What explains the existence of that thing?

    I ask because I know the answer already and it amuses me.

    You think that ‘things’ need a ‘thinger’ to explain their existence but the ‘thinger’ itself needs no explanation.

    So you get to ask why things exist and provide what you believe to be an explanation (there is a ‘thinger’) but you then go onto to remove the requirement to explain the origin of your ‘thinger’ via various mechanisms.

    All you’ve done is pushed back the explanation a step and then expect everybody not to notice you have as no answer to why things exist at all yourself.

    Why X?
    Y
    Why Y?
    It just is.

    Some ‘answer’. I guess the answers you are happy with are in accordance with your intellectual capacity so….

    0
  14. phoodoo: I am suggesting that space expanding into places that didn’t exist is arbitrary.

    Seems to me you are putting limits on your god. Can your god not do that then?

    Is the universe expanding or not?

    0
  15. Allan Miller: Relativistically, it shouldn’t. But then, I’m not the one making the relativistic argument.

    But it.does…and now you will further argue against relativity without providing the proof… You’ve handwaved Ellis’ math and now you are going to ignore relativity…
    Just say you are confused about your own preference…🤣

    0
  16. J-Mac: But it.does

    It does what?

    J-Mac: and now you will further argue against relativity without providing the proof

    Projection is where you accuse others of doing what you unconsciously know you are doing yourself.

    J-Mac: You’ve handwaved Ellis’ math and now you are going to ignore relativity

    You, like phoodoo, are not capable of dealing with the mathematics of what you are pretending to understand. I’ve not seen you engage once at that level.

    Math bluffer

    J-Mac: Just say you are confused about your own preference

    Clarifying confusion is what science does. What is it you think you are doing? It’s already been pointed out that your references that you are quoting don’t support your claims. If anyone is confused here it’s you.

    0
  17. newton: It states that it is God’s word that it happened.

    It also states this will happen:
    “Matthew 24:29

    “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

    Should I take these events literally?

    0
  18. J-Mac: It also states this will happen:
    “Matthew 24:29

    “But immediately after the tribulation of those days THE SUN WILL BE DARKENED, AND THE MOON WILL NOT GIVE ITS LIGHT, AND THE STARS WILL FALL from the sky, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.”

    Should I take these events literally?

    If you take any of it literally, why not? If the divine can create the existence of the universe it seems within reason that the divine can uncreate it . After all ,it is all relative.

    0
  19. J-Mac: So, you were wrong…

    Now you are channeling Keith’S. You’re not Keith having a bit of sock-puppetry fun. are you???

    0
  20. J-Mac: Who gets to render the judgment?

    Science.
    QM+SR = QFT = standard model
    It has no room for the fictitious forces.
    GR+QM=quantum gravity will generalize, not contradict, this science.

    0
  21. BruceS: Science

    Science? Or scientism? Let’s see…

    BruceS: QM+SR = QFT = standard model

    Here we go…I’m sorry to disappoint you but it doesn’t work because:
    charged particles travel faster than light through a transparent medium
    quantum entanglement
    and the accelerating expansion of the universe
    contradict relativity because things move faster than light…

    So, what do we have for the losers?

    BruceS: GR+QM=quantum gravity will generalize, not contradict, this science.

    Quantum gravity! Yahoo!!!
    Bruce already knows gravity and quantum mechanics will be unified. He must know something the world of science doesn’t know yet; the math that will accomplish it… The Nobel Prize is waiting you, Bruce…😉

    Until then, let’s stick with reality: which theory is more likely to be wrong?
    Quantum mechanics or gravity?

    0
  22. newton: If you take any of it literally, why not? If the divine can create the existence of the universe it seems within reason that the divine can uncreate it . After all ,it is all relative.

    Sure. Of course. Unless there exist clues that could hint otherwise…

    But, which one is easier to accomplish and without any negative consequences?
    Stop the rotation of the Sun and the Moon? Or create some kind of a visual, light phenomenon?
    The Bible mentions many examples where such phenomenon could have been used…

    0
  23. J-Mac: But it.does…

    To echo OM, what does?

    J: “EXACTLY! Why should yours be preferred?”
    A: “Relativistically, it shouldn’t”
    J: “But it does”

    ???

    and now you will further argue against relativity without providing the proof…

    I’m not arguing against relativity, I’m arguing against your misunderstanding of it. It says there is no privileged position, not “It’s Earth!”.

    You’ve handwaved Ellis’ math […]

    What’s your favourite part of Ellis’s math then? The clincher. It seems to me that you think science is done by stating people’s names.

    Just say you are confused about your own preference…

    Nope, I’m not at all confused about preferring the heliocentric Solar System as a superior model, and considering geocentrism utter baloney.

    0
  24. J-Mac: S
    Bruce already knows gravity and quantum mechanics will be unified

    Yeah, KeithS used to say I was wrong a lot too. Only he almost always had good reasons. And he was sometimes correct (maybe more than sometimes).

    To me, your posts seems especially embittered and mocking these days. I hope that does not reflect any bad circumstances for you IRL.

    ETA our -> your

    0
  25. BruceS: QM+SR = QFT = standard model
    It has no room for the fictitious forces.
    GR+QM=quantum gravity will generalize, not contradict, this science.

    Maybe. But considering that we presently have no idea how GR and QM could be unified — not even conceptually, let alone empirically — it’s important to quality one’s optimism (or pessimism).

    I believe there’s been some work relating quantum mechanics to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I can very dimly intuit that there’s gotta be something in understanding, in quantum mechanical terms, how far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems spontaneously emerge and persist. But my mathematical knowledge is too weak for me to function at that level.

    0
  26. Kantian Naturalist: But considering that we presently have no idea how GR and QM could be unified — not even conceptually, let alone empirically — it’s important to quality one’s optimism (or pessimism).

    Personally, I have no expectation that GR and QM will eventually be unified.

    I do not think of that as either optimism or pessimism. I think of it as realism about the limits of what science can achieve.

    0
  27. BruceS: Yeah, KeithS used to say I was wrong a lot too.

    Nobody likes being wrong…admitting it is even worse. It’s wasn’t keiths strength and neither is yours… 😉

    BruceS: Only he almost always had good reasons. And he was sometimes correct (maybe more than sometimes).

    Really? I don’t see it same way…

    BruceS: To me, your posts seems especially embittered and mocking these days. I hope that does not reflect any bad circumstances for you IRL.

    Absurdity has limits… even if it sounds very optimistic (see Kantian’s comment)
    I have never been better… personally and professionally.
    Thanks for asking!

    0
  28. Kantian Naturalist: Maybe. But considering that we presently have no idea how GR and QM could be unified — not even conceptually, let alone empirically

    I think it is well accepted that they won’t change the predictions we make in the domains we current can study well empirically. So there won’t be any room for the sorts of fictitious forces (like Coriolis forces only more so) that would be needed to take a geocentric frame of reference as anything more than a mathematical convenience in some circumstances.

    Here’s Sean C with a brief overview:
    http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/09/23/the-laws-underlying-the-physics-of-everyday-life-are-completely-understood.

    Specifically, the fictitious forces that J-Mac needs would, I think, mean changes to GR. That is very well confirmed except in extreme conditions like black hole singularities and the initial conditions of the universe. I posted recently about a test that extended the precision of testing by 100 times and found no issues.

    Regarding the forces other than gravity: my understanding is that the three forces covered in QFT are deeply explained by symmetries and by related quantum interactions.

    Perhaps these deeper mathematical explanations will be completely replaced. But AFAIK the main candidates — like Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory, or even speculation of emergent space from QM entanglement — all preserve and extend QFT ideas.

    0
  29. Kantian Naturalist,

    I had not looked at your academia page in a while. I found some new to me stuff there. I’m enjoying your history of the Pittsburgh school, although a lot of it is beyond my pay grade. Maybe you’ll get an opportunity to do something like that for the right-wing Sellarsians.

    NBN has a podcast on a book that may interest you: The Philosophy of Affordances (Escribano). I got a copy courtesy of libgen, and I see the references are chock full of Chemero, Gallagher, and Dreyfus. It seems the book’s ideas use their sort of enactivism.

    Nothing on PP, however.

    0
  30. J-Mac: and neither is yours

    On the stuff we discuss, these are not my ideas, they are mainstream physics. As I’ve posted in detail in other places, I see your posts as wrong because they contradict that established science.

    Glad you are well. I’ll sign off from this exchange now.

    0
  31. BruceS: On the stuff we discuss, these are not my ideas, they are mainstream physics. As I’ve posted in detail in other places, I see your posts as wrong because they contradict that established science.

    They may be main stream science but that science has no answers to such issues, like the unification of GR and QM.

    BruceS: Specifically, the fictitious forces that J-Mac needs would, I think, mean changes to GR.

    GR needs major changes and I’m not the one suggesting them, though I had suspected GR was incomplete a while back.
    Well known and respected physicists, like Anton Zeilinger, have been very outspoken about the issue of the impossibility of the unification, unless GR is modified in a major way…

    https://youtu.be/z82XCvgnpmA?t=904

    If this is done, dark energy and dark matter may never be found, or they may not be needed… 🙂

    0
  32. BruceS: I see your posts as wrong because they contradict that established science.

    This is a contradiction of your own earlier statement as GR and QM are not unified and therefore one of them could be wrong-GR probably…

    BruceS: Glad you are well.

    Thanks!

    BruceS: I’ll sign off from this exchange now.

    What would be the point to continue if you keep insisting that GR is a well established fact if mainstream scientists suspect it is not?
    So I agree…

    0
  33. Neil Rickert: Personally, I have no expectation that GR and QM will eventually be unified.

    GR looks like it needs a revamp.

    Neil Rickert: I do not think of that as either optimism or pessimism. I think of it as realism about the limits of what science can achieve.

    Agreed. The measurement problem is outside of physics to be resolved and physicists don’t like the idea of the universal consciousness… 🙂

    0
  34. BruceS: I had not looked at your academia page in a while. I found some new to me stuff there. I’m enjoying your history of the Pittsburgh school, although a lot of it is beyond my pay grade. Maybe you’ll get an opportunity to do something like that for the right-wing Sellarsians.

    That’s a good idea — I think I’ll do that. As I see it, it would involve how the idea of picturing is used by Churchland (in his state-space semantics) and Millikan (in her teleosemantics). Dennett has no use for it, but I think that his way of understanding stances and what stances do in relation to patterns is close to my way of thinking about what picturing does (in a nutshell: different stances are different ways of picturing what the patterns are).

    NBN has a podcast on a book that may interest you: The Philosophy of Affordances (Escribano). I got a copy courtesy of libgen, and I see the references are chock full of Chemero, Gallagher, and Dreyfus. It seems the book’s ideas use their sort of enactivism.

    Yeah, I need to get a copy of that!

    0
  35. Kantian Naturalist: Maybe. But considering that we presently have no idea how GR and QM could be unified — not even conceptually, let alone empirically — it’s important to quality one’s optimism (or pessimism).

    GR and QM can’t be unified conceptually because there are clear conflicts.
    For example: In GR space and time can be pretty well defined. But not so in QM, because particles can be in superposition; i.e. they can be in different places at the same time. Therefore, space can’t be well defined in QM, if at all…

    Kantian Naturalist: I believe there’s been some work relating quantum mechanics to non-equilibrium thermodynamics. I can very dimly intuit that there’s gotta be something in understanding, in quantum mechanical terms, how far-from-equilibrium thermodynamic systems spontaneously emerge and persist. But my mathematical knowledge is too weak for me to function at that level.

    In the measurement problem, for example, the Cartesian cut; the distinction of res cogitans vs res extensa, should be revised in the context (information/consciousness) of the problem of the relationship between mind and matter… etc

    0
  36. The “constant speed of light” in the main stream science is a perfect example how dogma hinders the real scientific progress:

    “…In the wonderful world of mainstream, if you find an experiment where speed of light is constant, then you say off special relativity applies.
    But, if you find (an experiment where the speed of light) is not constant you say general relativity applies…”

    Does the theory of general relativity contradict the theory of special relativity, and the other way around?
    Oh, no! They can’t be, because it is the main steam science… cooked by Einstein himself… What could be the reason for such a scam? Oh no, not to deny geocentrism???! 😉

    https://youtu.be/hKCO-TeVEgM?t=5699

    0
  37. Neil Rickert: I only watched a couple of minutes, starting at where you pointed in the link.

    Nice…but

    Neil Rickert: it sure looks as if that video is 2.5 hours of nonsense.

    …you’ve managed to contradict yourself…

    How could you know the video is 2.5 hours of nonsense, if you’d only watched a couple of minutes? Can you see my point, perhaps?
    There is a nice term to describe your attitude, which is pretty prevalent at TSZ… 😉

    0
  38. J-Mac: How could you know the video is 2.5 hours of nonsense, if you’d only watched a couple of minutes?

    I did not claim to know that. I commented only on the appearance left after watching a short segment.

    What I saw in that segment, was some people attempting to ridicule science that they clearly do not understand.

    0
  39. J-Mac: https://youtu.be/hKCO-TeVEgM?t=5699

    About the author of the documentary:

    “Robert A. Sungenis is an American Traditionalist Catholic known for his Catholic apologetics and his advocacy of a pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is the center of the universe. He has made statements about Jews and Judaism which have been criticized as being antisemitic, which he denies”

    0
  40. More about Sungenis:

    “In 2002, he said it was a fact that no one had ever proven that 6 million Jews died during the Holocaust and that demographic statistics show no real difference in the number of Jews living before and after World War II (see Historical Jewish population comparisons). According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, he also “repeated a series of ancient anti-Semitic canards” and later wrote about the involvement of Jews and Israel in a Zionist Satanic conspiracy aimed at Satan ruling the world”

    What do you think, J-Mac?

    0
  41. Oh dear. Now I see whence J-Mac is getting his innumerate ideas re geocentrism and Einstein. Yikes!
    However, I do not think that it is germane that Sungenis may be an antisemitic holocaust denier; for this discussion, what matters is that he cannot even get the right units when calculating the acceleration experienced by an object moving in a (roughly) circular path.
    But hey, what’s 10^22 between friends?

    0

  42. Regardless of whether the YT video spouts nonsense all the way through, it’s obvious to me that no fair-minded person could think that Einstein would not have noticed such an obvious concern, nor anyone else in the last 100 years.

    Of course, the reality is that the assumption about c that Einstein made in SR already addresses it.

    “The velocity c of light in vacuum is the same in all inertial frames of reference in all directions and depend neither on the velocity of the source nor on the velocity of the observer'”

    What happens in GR is well understood and the explanation is easy to find if one is interested in looking.
    http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_gravity.htm

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/59502/does-gravity-slow-the-speed-that-light-travels

    ETA: I wondered about the details of the issue and learned something from the links. I posted because I thought others might as well (but not, I suspect, one particular person).

    0
  43. Allan Miller: That’s good enough for me. *cough* #13!

    I don’t have the stomach for watching these crackpot videos. But for what you and DNA_Jock say, it seems he is applying ideas from Newtonian mechanics to the issue.

    Is that what is happening?

    0
  44. BruceS,

    I dunno, more that gravitation and c are not constants. But I was more amused by the offering of cash prizes as having ‘crackpot value’.

    0

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.