Geocentrism

[Anonymous No.6346879]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8cBvMCucTg

Thoughts? Could potentially be interesting.

Here are lengthy videos where the guy behind the film goes over his views.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMr8lb2tYvo
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnLYIbpNst4

I thought they were interesting but I'm reserving any and all judgement because I don't know enough astrophysics. If someone can refute what they say (the physics, not their religious views which I don't care about) that would be valuable to me. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.6346907]

>ITT It's 18th Century

[Anonymous No.6346915]

>>6346907
Do you know the physics? Their argument is pretty interesting but I don't have the expertise to tell if it has any validity or not.

[Anonymous No.6346935]

>>6346915
There is no debate. There is no argument. People have bin to space. Its over.

[Anonymous No.6346949]

Physics is relative, meaning you're allowed to look at things from whatever perspective you choose. If you want to model the solar system as orbiting the earth, you're free to do so. But doing so creates orbits many magnitudes more complex than the heliocentric model. Thus, for simplicity's sake we use a heliocentric model.

Geocentrism isn't "wrong", but it needlessly complicates things.

[Anonymous No.6346960]

>>6346949
That's the thing, they argue against relativity and for absolutism, and their argument for it is quite interesting. Well, he gives a history of how relativity came about and it's intriguing.

[Anonymous No.6346969]

>But doing so creates orbits many magnitudes more complex than the heliocentric model.

This is wrong. The orbits are exactly the same whether you choose the sun or the earth as your reference. They have simulations comparing both reference frames on the third vid in the OP. They look more or less the same.

[Anonymous No.6346977]

Nobody is watching 2 hours of nonsense, people have hit to do. If you think he has interesting ideas then state them.

[Anonymous No.6346986]

>>6346969
It's not wrong. The heliocentric model can be described entirely with elliptical tidal orbits and relativistic corrections. Geocentrism required epicycles. It also introduces fictitious forces. Put quite simply if you enforce geocentrism you have forces that come from nowhere, in reality they are the effect of using a noninertial frame of reference.

True geocentrism simply fails when you consider the phases of planets. The planets must orbit the Sun. You can say the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth and the Planets orbit the Sun, Tycho's model. Even this introduces fictitious forces.

[Anonymous No.6346990]

>>6346977
Have shit* to do

[Anonymous No.6346993]

>>6346986
Elliptical * orbits

[Anonymous No.6347000]

>>6346977
OK, I think there are three main points.

>evidence gathered in the late 19th and early 20th century pointed to geocentrism. There has been a satellite recently that has taken a map of the cosmic background radiation in the Universe and it is arranged around the Earth.
>scientists in the 20th century really did not want to entertain the idea of geocentrism because it would imply that the Earth is special and not just another planet where life just happened to grow. He gives some interesting quotes by famous scientists saying they absolutely could not tolerate geocentrism. This lead to Einstein's revolution in physics where now there is no center because everything is relative, but this view has lead scientists to a dead end where they have to come up with absurd patches like dark matter and multiverse to cover up the flaws in their theory.
>the mathematics backing up Geocentrism is Newtonian mechanics. We can do all the same things we do like satellites and space travel in a geocentric view. The main idea is that there is a center of mass in the Universe (necessarily, you can find it by adding up all the mass) and that that center happens to be where the Earth is. The sun would pull the Earth around a center of mass which is much closer to the sun than the Earth because the sun has much greater mass IF the Earth and sun were the only objects in the Universe. The truth is that you have to take into account all the objects in the Universe, and they happen to be arranged with the Earth as the center of mass. That seems like a statistical impossibility but there are plenty of statistical impossibilities when it comes to the Earth, like the background radiation I mentioned above.

[Anonymous No.6347004]

>>6346986
I think they are using Tycho Brahe's model, I'm not sure. They mention him.

[Anonymous No.6347008]

>>6347000
search WMAP axis of evil, for info on that cosmic background radiation discovery.

[Anonymous No.6347021]

>>6347000
>evidence gathered in the late 19th and early 20th century pointed to geocentrism. There has been a satellite recently that has taken a map of the cosmic background radiation in the Universe and it is arranged around the Earth.

Does his geocentric model explain this result? I expect not. It's not evidence.

His criticism of relativity is nonsense. Relativity has been validated by countless experiments. Is dark matter a patch or is that prejudice?

Newtonian mechanics does not back geocentrism. You can do all the same thing but only by introducing fictitious forces from nowhere (a patch if you will). If this model was based on Newtonian mechanics then it cannot explain thing like Shapiro delay or the orbit of mercury. It cannot describe the motion of satellites.
The claim of the centre of mass requires evidence. The chance alignment of the centre of mass on the Earth is much much less likely than the alignment of the CMB which has significant errors.

He doesn't have a model.

[Anonymous No.6347024]

>>6347000
the cosmic background looks centered upon the earth because the earth is our observing point. take your observation from the moon and you'll find the moon is the center of everything.

[Anonymous No.6347030]

>>6346907
Are you retarded? Geocentrism was long discredited by the 18th century

[Anonymous No.6347031]

>>6347024
Nah, that's what I thought at first too but that isn't the answer. There really is something anomalous about the cosmic background radiation that cosmologists were not expecting, although it may not have anything to do with geocentrism, the guy seems to think it does.

>>6347021
>Relativity has been validated by countless experiments.
Source? I don't think that the guy mentions this so you could be right.
>If this model was based on Newtonian mechanics then it cannot explain thing like Shapiro delay or the orbit of mercury. It cannot describe the motion of satellites.
He says that he can explain Mercury and that satnav systems even refute Einstein. Check 23:35 in the second vid in the OP.

[Anonymous No.6347032]

>>6347000
>>6347021
I should also say dark matter doesn't come from relativity, it comes from Newtonian mechanics. Relativity reduces to Newtonian gravitation so this model does not remove dark matter.

[Anonymous No.6347035]

>>6347032
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Although they got rid of Aether to make way for Relativity, so maybe Aether could explain what's happening rather than "dark matter".

[Anonymous No.6347041]

>>6347031
>Source?
Just an example, but GPS satellites have to take relativity into account for their calculations. The effect is slight, but if they didn't then they'd be inaccurate by many miles.

[Anonymous No.6347048]

Check this guy's comments on Einstein lel

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/physicists.htm
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/humor.htm

Guys, check out the part at 1 hr 41 min in the third vid about the Big Bang. Does he have a point or is he talking shit?

[Anonymous No.6347050]

>>6347030
yet we are talking about it in 2014

[Anonymous No.6347053]

>>6347041
Check that 23:35 I mentioned above. The guy says GPS are using an extra equation that allows for light travelling faster than c.

[Anonymous No.6347055]

>>6347053
Yeah, I think I'll take the word of the people who design these satellites over some guy.

[Anonymous No.6347057]

OK, one of the most striking claims the guy has made is that we have NEVER observed the Earth moving in any experiment. Apparently Einstein even admitted that we would never find the Earth moving in an optical experiment, I.e. we would never SEE it moving. What's more is that apparently the Michelson-Morley exoeriment showed that the Earth wasn't moving.

[Anonymous No.6347059]

>>6347055
He says he got that info from a GPS company.

[Anonymous No.6347060]

>>6347041
>inaccurate by many miles

urban legend

"The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein's general theory of relativity would seem to require." tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1996/Vol 28_16.pdf

[Anonymous No.6347064]

>>6347031
>Source?
Pound-Rebka, Michelson Morley, Relativistic parallax and proper motion, gravitational deflection of light, Shapiro delay or the hundreds of other experiments.

>He says that he can explain Mercury
Then he isn't using Newtonian mechanics.

[Anonymous No.6347077]

>>6347053
He's full of shit. There has never been a single experiment that conclusively proved light was traveling faster than c. GPS systems DO NOT include code that says light travels faster than c.

How relativity applies to the GPS system has been studied extensively. It agrees with GR and SR.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf

It's easy to make claims like this but they are utterly hollow.

[Anonymous No.6347083]

>>6347060
It's half an urban legend. The GPS clocks are synced in such a way that all drift is removed. They do not do the calculation but some of that drift is due to relativity. It has been shown in other work that the results are in agreement with relativity.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf

Secondly you've posted a dead link.

>>6347059
>"He claims.."
Worthless.

[Anonymous No.6347088]

>>6346879
How does this guy explain the phases of Venus with the geocentric model?
Oh, he can't? OK then. Then he's wrong. Case closed.

[Anonymous No.6347087]

>>6346879
Geocentrism was proven false when it was discovered that planets like Mars and Venus appear to reverse direction in the sky. Either the planets are steered in some crazy loop-de-loop fashion or we're all orbiting the sun.

[Anonymous No.6347092]

>>6347087
Venus doesn't change direction in the sky. Only planets farther from the Sun than the Earth is have retrograde motion.

[Anonymous No.6347105]

>>6347083
>drift is due to relativity

Sure. For the orbit of a GPS satellite (mean orbital radius 26560km) the GR component is +45µs/day (grav. potential) and the SR part is -7µs/day (velocity). So after a day the clock would be 38µs ahead of the ground clock. This is compensated for with a pre-launch rate adjustment of the satellite clock.

The residual drift of the on-board clocks is periodically corrected through synchronization to a single very accurate ground station clock.

[Anonymous No.6347106]

>>6347088
>>6347088

I don't seriously believe in geocentrism but venus would still have phases. The moon goes around the earth and has phases. You could argue why the outer planets DON'T have phases though.

[Anonymous No.6347124]

>>6347106
Ok then, for the sake of a fun argument I'll just assume you're playing the devil's advocate.

Then explain, oh you who "believe" in geocentrism, why is it that Venus and Mercury are never visible at midnight but only just after Sunset or just before Sunrise?
If Venus and Mercury were orbiting the Earth they would spend equal times on the "night" side as they would on the "day" side. But they don't. Venus and Mercury both spend their time exclusively on the day side of the Earth. In the heliocentric model this is easy to explain- Venus and Mercury are closer to the Sun than the Earth is, so they will always appear near the Sun in our sky, but how would the geocentric model explain this?

[Anonymous No.6347140]

>>6347106
No, the point isn't that Venus has phases it's that a geocentric model can't explain them. The phases of the Moon are different to the phases of the planets in terms of the cycle.

The Moon is full when it is on the opposite side of the sky to the Sun. Venus and Mercury are never on the opposite side and yet we can see them almost full. A geocentric model cannot explain that.

[Anonymous No.6347269]

>>6347083
>you've posted a dead link
Yes, the document url has changed but it's easy to find. Go to www.dtic.mil and look for ADA516975.pdf

...less than one centimeter for users on or near the earth

[Anonymous No.6347276]

>>6347269
The drift is there and it's very much measurable. All this anti-relativity stuff is utter crap.

[Anonymous No.6347289]

>>6347000
The "relativity" this guy takes issue with exists in Newtonian mechanics since I can use a Galilean transform to move between inertial systems in Newtonian mechanics the same I can use Lorentz boosts between frames in "modern relativistic" mechanics [I can't recall the proper name...]. In short, the guy has no idea what he is talking about if this is actually his evidence.

[Anonymous No.6347294]

>>6346879
Goddamnit, people like you posting this shit are the reason they get views and sell shit. The website leads directly to a squeeze page. Why the fuck would you listen to heavily edited interviews when you could read their papers or listen actual in depth unedited ones?