Difference between revisions of "Talk:Geocentric theory"

Revision as of 16:19, June 8, 2007

I have added a paragraph about the scientific and biblical evidence for the Geocentric theory. I think there's a lot more that could be said here but I don't have time write it now. I'll probably add some more next week. - Mmeelliissssaa

Your entry was kooky -- was it intended as a joke? RSchlafly 01:25, 19 April 2007 (EDT)

No it wasn't. I appreciate that views like mine are not popular or wide spread, but aleast the bible verses and scientific evidence should be stated so that people can think about it. A admit that what I wrote wasn't brilliantly written, I'll rewrite it now that I have a bit more time. Please do some reasurch on the Michelson-Morley experiment rather than just deleting my stuff. Basicly scientists tried for ages to measure the motion of the earth through space, but the couldn't do it. The Michelson-Morley experiment was the first time they admited that they couldn't do it. Relatativity is illogical, people believe it because they are confused by it and they take scientists at their word. Why do people have so much faith in scientists instead of having faith in God when he says that the earth is "Fixed fast"? -Mmeelliissssaa Mmeelliissssaa 11:51, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Relativity is true, you're just gonna have to get used to it, and once you have, please remove the pseudo science from this article.

Here's the proof:

Hafele-Keating experiment

GPS and relativity

Middle Man

Relativity is not illogical. Please don't put this junk in, unless you can show the logical error in relativity. RSchlafly 21:30, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Did you read the Link I included? What do you say to that? I'm not interested in what Scientists say about Cesium clocks abd GPS, and you second link was broken. Heres my link again, this guy seems to know what he's talking about: thefinaltheory.com I'll post a load more links when I have more time. I'm just asking for my beliefs to mentioned so that people will be aware of them, thats all. Its fair that the article should mentioned evidence for AND against the Geocentric model. At least put the bible verses back in. Mmeelliissssaa 05:42, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

The link is nonsense. Please do not put it back in. RSchlafly 12:43, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

"The link is nonsense" thats not much of an argument is it? The guy is a genious and is currently making thousands / millions because he points out where science is going wrong and none of the experts can give an answer to him. Can't you even answer one of his points? Arn't you even going to try? I think that proves my point. The first chapter of his book is avalible online for free here. He points out that the current theortical framework is full of contradictions and paradoxes, for instance on Page 17 of the book (page 23 of the PDF file) he explains that Newtons law of gravity is incompatable with the law of conservation of energy, on page 20 (26 of pdf) he shows that the work function is a flawed concept. On page 30 / 36 he start to put forward his alturnative theorys which include a purley geometric explanation of gravity. The Science flaws section of his website highligts even more flaws in modern science here and he was links to articles in which scienctists admit that the don't have a clue how the world works here. Expalin that if you can Mmeelliissssaa 12:19, 25 April 2007 (EDT) Geocentric theory may be a minority view but I am not the only one. There are others who think the same way as me, there is evidence to support our beliefs and so our views should be mentioned here. Here are a list of websites suppoerting geocentric theory: 1) geocentricity.com 2) fixedearth.com 3) Three 4) Four Mmeelliissssaa 12:38, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

The guy is a kook. No one should take the book seriously. RSchlafly 13:03, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

Could you please explain why you think he is "a kook". His ideas seem very logical to me. Thanks Mmeelliissssaa 13:10, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I've made some extensive changes. The article now gives some neutral information on geocentric theory with out promoting it or agreeing with it. I apologise if my previous posts here have annoyed you, I just want my beliefs to be mentioned and I become somewhat defensive when my beliefs are so casually dismissed and ridiculed, that happens to me rather a lot. I hope you will agree that the article is now neutral and informative. I would welcome any constructive criticism or constructive edits to my work but please don't just delete it again, I have put work into it. Thank you. Mmeelliissssaa 13:08, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

No, your edits were not neutral or factual. They misstate Michelson-Morley, relativity, and geocentrism. Your beliefs are ridiculous, if you really believe that nonsense. RSchlafly 14:25, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

That is a dangerous precedent to claim. It might be applied to other articles. --Mtur 14:32, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. RSchlafly 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page. How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment? I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance. How did I "misstate" relativity? I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment. Stop vandalising the article. If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument. But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. Mmeelliissssaa 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.Mmeelliissssaa 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

You said the MM experiment was an "attempt to detect the absolute motion of the Earth through space". No, it was an attempt to measure motion of Earth relative to the aether. You said relativity postulates that space and time are distorted to make the Earth appear stationary. No, that's not right either. If you think that you have a valid view, then show me an example of one person who understands freshman physics and agrees with you. RSchlafly 11:40, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

The aether was believed to be an absolution frame of reference therefor "Motion relative to aether" = "absolute motion through space". The two statments mean exactly the same thing. We can use your phrasing if you like, the meaning of the paragraph will remain unchanged.Mmeelliissssaa 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Many people have tried to create a Theory of everything. It's not for a trustworthy encyclopedia like ours to present cutting-edge research like that. Paradigm shifts in science can take decades. Let's just write up what we already know. Then later, if there's time, we can describe recent (possible) breakthroughs. Fair enough? --Ed Poor 11:43, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I agree that an encylopedia shouldn't endorse such cutting edge research yes, though I think it would be worth mentioning it. String theory has an entire article dedicated to it. Alturnative (To relativity) science is quite inportant to the Geocentric earth movement. Mmeelliissssaa 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I've been advised to make smaller edits at a time, and to discuss them here before making them as well as afterwards so here goes. There are a number of Bible verses that describe the position and motion of the earth in space, and since that is what this article discusses I propose that they be added here. I propose that they be put in their own section at the end of the article. If known one has any objections I plan to make this change tomorrow. If anyone knows of some relevant verses please add / suggest them, I only know for off the top of my head but I know there are several others. Thank you Mmeelliissssaa 12:14, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I object. You position has no significant support from either science or theology. You cannot meet the most minimal standards for a good edit. RSchlafly 12:29, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

I do not object. I don't have any problem with stating what some people believe, or claim that the Bible says. --CPAdmin1 12:32, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

Vandalism

I have reverted edits* made by RSchlafly, as I consider them to be tantamount to vandalism. The material was well-sourced, relevant to the article as it stood, and fitted in well. There was no reason given for its removal. If this behavour persists, I shall report the user to a Sysop and request that he or she be banned from conservapedia.

• (*) Actually, it's not quite true that I have simply reverted the edits. I have actually incorporated the amterial into the article. OfficerDibble.

I have now reverted two uncommented upon edits by RSchlafly. I shall report this behaviour to a Sysop.

Let me know if any sysops express the opinion that my version is vandalism.

Your stuff is junk. Your sources are just obscure and incoherent opinions pieces. Do you have some disagreement with the text that you removed? If so, what? RSchlafly 04:38, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Exactly in what way is my stuff junk? I have used Galieleo's OWN WORDS and I have used a reference to a interpreation of the Galileo repudiation of Heliocentrism by by a Catholic Scholar. EXACTLY WHY IS THAT JUNK?? You offend me by saying that. I have cited my sources which is more than the rest of the article is doing. Would it not have been best to engage in dialogue before you remove stuff? On what grounds are you the arbiter of what, or should not be in this article? AFIK, I did not remove any of your material. If I did, I apologise. What I did was to rearrange the article to include the stuff you had removed.OfficerDibble

In any case, Modern Geocentricism is alive and kicking. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism. You may not agree with it, but that does not mean that you are entield to remove amterial concerning it without discussion.

You say "this view is apparently based ...". Is it or isn't it? Does anyone know? You quote someone saying, "One could probably derive it nowadays". Probably? Can it be done or not? Is it an unknown question? Then he says "Maybe physicists would be forced", so I guess he doesn't know. Why not quote someone who does know? This is an old subject, and it is not that complicated. You text continue in this confusing and contradictory manner. Later you go on to Galileo and other topics that are better dealt with elsewhere.

To answer your Galileo question, your quote is not really his own words. He was forced to say that.

If you wanted to engage in dialog, then you'd explain why you removed the text that you removed. RSchlafly 04:53, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I asked you to tell me what text I removed. You say that Galileo was forced to say it, but say it he did, and The quote I used origianlly from Deutsch clearly demonstrates that this is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. If you want me to find a clearer referecne I will, as it is absolutley true that the universal vieew could be reformulated as a Geocentric one, Galitleo's own theory of relativity states that all frames are rquivalent. It's just that it provides a convoluted motion of the planets, and by Occam#]s Razor we normmally go with Heliocentriscm. There is a debate here, and you should NOT just remove good material without discussion. I am LIVID.OfficerDibble

Calm down. Go ahead and express your views here. What is the point of quoting Galileo? Galileo also expressed opposing views. Why not quote them? Why even bother with Galileo? His dispute with the Pope is well-known, but he wasn't otherwise so important in the history of geocentric theory. What point are you trying to make? RSchlafly 05:18, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Conservapedia Protocol

I am under the impression that edits should not be summarily removed unless they are clearly vandalism or worthless. Flocci­nauci­nihili­pili­fication should not be undertaken lightly, as the author has probably gone to a lot of trouble wrting it and finding sources. Even if you disagree with the views, and thisnk tha arguments are nonsense, someone doesn't and (especially as in this case), there are people who hold these views as part of their religious beliefs. Conservapedia was set up to giv voices to those who felt they were being persecuted and diesnfranchised by Wikipedia. The edits to this article are tantamount to the same thing. I think this issue needs to be debated much more widely. OfficerDibble

So you think that my edits are vandalism and I think that your edits are worthless. We have a difference of opinion. Go ahead debate CP policies elsewhere if you wish. I would rather discuss the subject matter of this article. RSchlafly 05:41, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

Suggested Changes

I think we should mention Genisis in the Scripture section. Genisis says that the Earth was made on day one, and the sun, moon and stars were made on day four. By the end of day three there was an Earth, complete with plants, but no sun or moon. I think that cleary indicates that the earth is central and the other celestial objects periferal. Clearly the Heleocentric theory cannot explain how the earth and its plants could exist four 24hours with out a sun.Mmeelliissssaa 13:14, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

I also think we should add some links to Pro-Geocentric sites, Here are a few that I know of:1) geocentricity.com 2) fixedearth.com 3) Three 4) Four 5)galileowaswrong.com. I've heard somebody suggest that fixedearth.com may be a parody site, I think its real, it isn't really funny or trying to be funny like a parrody would. Sure in a few places the author presents his views in a slightly light hearted way but I don't see anything wrong with that.Mmeelliissssaa 14:01, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

So how do you explain plants living without sunlight? Maybe the answer could go in an article on Genesis.

Do any of those sites say that mainstream physics is wrong is some testable way? Has anyone done the tests? RSchlafly 14:19, 6 May 2007 (EDT)

There is no direct way to test wether or not the earth is moving, it all comes down to interpreting indirect evidence. There is more than one valid interpretation of that evidence. I have tried to discuss the scientific evidence here before (Above) and given links my views. My varguments and links were dismissed as rubbish without any counter arguments being put forward. I don't plan repeat the whole dissussion but I would appreciated it if the links could be included 1) to give people the opportunity to read further and assess the evidence for themselves 2) To make people aware of the views of people like myself. Thankyou Mmeelliissssaa 08:49, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

It says in Gensis that god created the earth, the light and the plants before he created the sun. The plants therefor had all the light they needed, despite the fact that there was no sun at that point, and the earht cannot have been moving / orbiting. The sun was created in day four.Mmeelliissssaa 08:52, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

You say "There is no direct way to test whether or not the earth is moving", and the article says something similar. You cite the Bible, and the article has Bible quotes. What's the problem? The problem with your links is that they have too much crackpot stuff in them, and are not good sources on the subject. RSchlafly 13:16, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

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:

1. 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." ^[1] 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.^[2] 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.
2. 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 because it 'makes more sense' and offers more readily understood explanations. In fact Deutsch spends a good deal of the book discussing the two positions. His view is that if we accept the Heliocentric reasoning through parsimony and explanatory power, we should also accept the view that the Universe is in fact a quantum multiverse by the same reasoning. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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 valid in this context, and therefore should be shown prominently (in fact they are, but they need to be explored further).
5. Finally, since this debate is based on belief, we should foreground the matter of the Inquisition, and the 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 why Geocentricsm was subsequently 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 crucial to the article, and I totally object to the removal of it on specious grounds, and without discussion --OfficerDibble 03:51, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

1. ↑ http://www.relisoft.com/Science/Physics/MicroAnt.html
2. ↑ "http://veritas-catholic.blogspot.com/2005/08/geocentricity-101-part-i.html

Points 1, 2, and 4 are contained in the 3rd paragraph in the article. Yes, the frame is a matter of choice, and the article says so.

Point 3 contradicts those points. If geocentrism is somehow more correct, then it is not just a philosophical choice. If Katz says that new cosmological evidence shows that the frame is not a matter of choice, then that would be worth considering. He does not.

As for Point 5, there is another article on Galileo addressing the matter, and I suggest checking that out. RSchlafly

There are now no links to Galileo. Should we add "Copernicus and Galileo were the main proponents of the Heliocentric view." or somethink short like that containing links to these important men in history of this theory. --Aulis Eskola 18:50, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

No. The article is on the Geocentric theory. There is a separate article on the Heliocentric view. RSchlafly 19:20, 7 May 2007 (EDT)

Robert, so there is a double standard? TOE article for example is full of opposing views, most are creationist views. So why allow that on the TOE page and not on this page?--TimS 13:55, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

By the way, I do not think you (Robert) are wrong in this view, personaly I believe that the POVs should not be in the articles, when the articles are discriptions of ideas.--TimS 13:56, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't think that there is any significant dispute about what the Geocentric theory is. RSchlafly 14:19, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

I would agree as there is little dispute of what TOE is either. The dispute is not the point, the injecting the views are.--TimS 14:27, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

If I were editing Theory of evolution, it would be a lot different. RSchlafly 14:39, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Lol, perhaps you should... The consistancy of a lot of the articles seem to be in question when you look at the TOE article and compare it to others on the site. Perhaps some form or standard should be provided. I mentioned to Andy about the Astronomy article containing 22% information on Astronomy, 64% YEC views and 14% counters to YEC views. Seems to not provide a clear definition of what the topic is.--TimS 14:44, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

You are right, the Astronomy article is garbage. It doesn't even describe the views of the YEC folks very well, and instead has silly cheap shots. RSchlafly 15:43, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Do you have any comments on the direction the articles are headed along with suggestions on how to get them on the 'right track'? --Mtur 15:45, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

Rubbish. Abject rubbish. The real issue in *centrism is the overall geometrical form of the solar system, not this trash about "reference points". The overall form of the solar system, regardless of your reference point, is that of a series of quasi-concentric ellipsoids, with the sun occupying one of the foci. This entirely dispels any validity to geocentric pseudoscientific theory, under which Earth would occupy one of the foci. --ExecutableMandlebrot 22:32, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

Another attempt

I have put a copy of the first paragraph here, with some comments, problems and some additions. I would like to collaborate with anyone who can work towards an improved version, which addresses the concerns I have raised about this article previously.--OfficerDibble 10:20, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Why don't you discuss your concerns here. Your proposal says that it is not true that heliocentrism was preferred in the 1800s. Why do you say that? Who in the 1800s did prefer heliocentrism? RSchlafly 11:48, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

What happend to Copernicus and Keppler?

Article jumps from Ptolemy to Maxwell. Huh? The heliocentric model was established in the 1500s and 1600s, not the 1800s. Relativity, etc. do not shed much light on the geocentric/heliocentric debate. (unsigned)

The article is on geocentrism, not heliocentrism. RSchlafly 13:52, 29 May 2007 (EDT)

Obviously, but the article's second paragaph is still pretty bizarre from a history-of-science perspective. At least in Protestant countries, the geocentic view was replaced long before the 1800s. Maxwell may have convinced a few stragglers, but I never heard that. I would love to see a reference if it's true. Ga ohoyt 21:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, the geocentric view replaced the heliocentric before the 1800s. But the 1800s brought the most compelling arguments that geocentrism was scientifically wrong. RSchlafly 01:57, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Both Theories Correct?

There is a major error in this article in the third paragraph. The fact that calculations are done from the perspective that the Earth is not moving around the Sun does not mean that physicists are applying a geocentric theory. It merely means that, when convenient, they can perform calculations from the point of view of a static Earth. By the same token, you can perform calculations based on the world as seen from a moving train, and assume that the train is not moving. That does not mean you have a theory that the train is not moving (a train-centric theory?). NitramNos 12:15, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I agree. Maybe the proper thing to say is that modern theories suggest that there is no "center" to the universe per se. At the same time, modern physical models and mathematical tools allow us to call any point the center for purposes of convenience. That was the real problem with geocentrism: It took the observed motions of the planets and forced them into a messy spheres-within-spheres model which not only was complicated but also shed no light on the real (Kepplerian) physical principles involved. Ga ohoyt 12:39, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

No, that is not error. If you do calculations in Earth-centered coordinates then you are using geocentric theory, whether you think of the Earth as static or not. RSchlafly 12:49, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

That is patently false. You are dishonestly conflating the term Geocentric Theory, which historically refers to the theory stating that the Earth is the center of the universe, with a mathematical convenience. Performing calculations based on a geocentric coordinate system does not equal belief in the geocentric theory. It is just a convenient use of a reference frame as was already pointed out. I can perform calculations using a reference frame centered on myself, but it does not mean I think I am the center of the universe. QNA 12:56, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

If you are so sure of yourself, can you provide a reference to back up what you say? RSchlafly 13:32, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with QNA. You are pulling the same trick that the evolutionists pull when they capitalize "Theory and Evolution" and then claim that the word theory has been promoted from a hypotesis to a field of study, like Number Theory. But geocentrism was never such a field. It was a viewpoint that fell to a superior (for most purposes) viewpoint. Happens all the time in science. Ga ohoyt 20:37, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it happens all the time that some viewpoints are superior over others for some purposes. RSchlafly 23:04, 7 June 2007 (EDT)

I'm afraid RShafly's opinion above is based on a profound misunderstanding of the meaning of the term 'scientific theory.' As QNA points out above, performing a calculation based on an assumption that the Earth is not revolving because it is convenient when calculating a rocket's trajectory, is not based on a theory that the Earth is not revolving. By the same token, if I perform a calculation involving the movements of objects outside a moving train from the point of view that the train is not moving, it does not imply that I have a theory that the train is not actually moving. You will find a good definition of 'scientific theory' here [1]. NitramNos 09:33, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Strictly speaking, Ga ohoyt is correct. The Sun is certainly not the center of the universe. Current scientific theory, however, does assume that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the reverse. NitramNos 09:50, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

So what are you saying, that geocentric theory does not qualify as a scientific theory under someone's definition of scientific theory? That calculations of a rocket trajectory are not based on theory? If there is some misunderstanding, then please explain it. RSchlafly 11:37, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong. Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory. It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory. It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else. The theory is not used for anything. Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory. Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling. I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia? And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself. One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. QNA 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)