Changes

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear:

I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear:

# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of chooice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galieleo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of chooice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galieleo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from whatever location you like. Bartosz Milewski (2006) states in reference to the Geocentric Theory: "Looking at the predictions it made of planetary movements, it is pretty good. One could probably derive it nowadays from the heliocentric theory by changing the system of coordinates (since the system attached to the Earth is not inertial, one would have to use Einstein's general relativity to do that correctly). Maybe physicists would be forced to introduce more cycles upon cycles to account for all the anomalies—maybe infinitely many. So even though the two theories differ in complexity, they are presumably equivalent in their predictive power." <ref> http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html </ref>

"If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref/>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html <ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.

"If one treats the motions in the heavens as relative motions (whether Galilean relativity, Einstein's General Relativity, or other types), one can create a model of the cosmos which is consistent with observations from many (if not any) reference points.<ref>"http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html </ref> I can supply a hundred other sources which say the same thing. This is not in doubt, it is a fact and needs to be made clear.

# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. That means it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no scientific basis of choosing between these explanations.

# Secondly, I am pointing out that the preferred view by most scientists, is on the basis of a philosphical rather than a scientific position. For example, in 'The Fabric of Reality", by David Deutsch (1997), Deutsch states the following criterion for reality: we should "... regard as real those complex entities which, if we did not regard them as real, would complicate explanations". This appears to be no more than a simple restatement of [[Occam's Razor]]. Deutsch's argument is that we choose to accept as real the Heliocentric argument simply becsue it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. That means it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, as we have no scientific basis of choosing between these explanations.

# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.

# Thirdly, it is clear that there are scientific arguments as to why the Geocentric Theory might be correct. For example : '''Gamma ray burst''' observations reported in "The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts" (ISBN 0-19-514570-4), by Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University: "The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible)." Another line of evidence referred to by modern geocentrists is related to '''quantized redshift'''. If the universe violates predictions from the FRW metric derived from General Relativity, it is not expanding but has a redshift-distance relation, and the redshifts of particular types of astronomical objects only take on certain values, that would suggest that the objects are located on shells concentric around the Earth, that is, that the location of the Earth is special.

# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

# Finally, if this is a matter of beleief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucial, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism.

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --~~~~

What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --[[User:OfficerDibble|OfficerDibble]] 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

 

<references/>

<references/>