Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Geocentric theory

329 bytes added, 08:05, 7 May 2007
/* Important elements to include in the Article */
I am trying to make five points in this article, which are NOT currently sufficiently clear as it stands:
# The use of a Geocentric or Heliocentric frame of reference is a matter of choice, and not a matter of scientific proof. Both Galileo and Einstein have relativistic principles which allow celestial mechanics to be viewed from virtually 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> This is not a unique view: "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 because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two posisionspositions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimonyand explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum [[multiverse]] by the same reasonsingreasoning. That means All of this makes it clear that Heliocentrism is a ''philosophical '' position, not a scientific one, as we have no clear ''scientific'' basis of choosing between these explanations.# Thirdly, it is clear that there are valid 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.# Fourthly as it is established that the acceptance of Heliocentrism is philosphical, and that there are scientific objections, it is therefore a matter of what we choose to believe, rather than what is an established fact, despite the fact that Heliocentricism is the established orthodoxy. Biblical arguments can be seen to be as valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).# Finally, if since this debate is a matter of beleiefbased on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and what Galieleo said or did not say then becomes crucialthe debates which were prevalent at the time, as following the time of Galileo, science underwent a [[paradigm shift]] in belief away from Geocentricism towards Heliocentricism. What Galileo said or did not say during this debate then becomes crucial to understanding whay Geocentricsm was sidelined, why it refused to go away, and why there has been a recent resurgence of interest in it.
What Mmeelliissssaa and I are saying is therefore absolutely crucail crucial 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/>
67
edits