Talk:Modern geocentrism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Modern geocentrism article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
Modern geocentrism was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.


Contents

[edit] Archives

See past discussion in the archive:

[edit] Overview of modern geocentrism

I've reworded the second bullet point because I felt it was rather too rich in words like "supposedly" to be truly NPOV. Also I've attempted to make it a little clearer. Hopefully I have maintained the semantics of the section. SheffieldSteel 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text moved from main page

I've moved this here just in case I'm mistaken about this...

Another is in Joshua 10, 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:[1]

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

I think it shouldn't be in the article because it indicates a heliocentric, rather than geocentric, view of the universe. It clearly says "the sun was in the midst of heaven."

SheffieldSteel 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who think they must draw astronomical conclusions from this text, the geocentric version is less contrived. Furthermore, this verse should stay in simply because it is commonly cited as Biblical evidence for geocentrism. If you have an attributable reference that suggests the other reading, that might be interesting to add. (I will wait a bit for further comment before putting the text back.) --Art Carlson 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
In what way is interpreting "the sun... in the midst of heaven" to mean that the earth is the centre of the universe less contrived than taking it to mean that the sun is? The passage does, after all, refer to the sun. And what is biblically based geocentrism, if not drawing astronomical conclusions from the text? SheffieldSteel 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"The Sun stood still ..." implies that it usually moves, and in particular that the daily motion is caused by the motion of the Sun rather than that of the Earth. "... in the midst of heaven" could refer to a central position for the Sun in the astronomical order, but that interpretation would be hard to reconcile with the Sun normally not standing still there. The more obvious interpretation is that the middle of the visible sky is meant. I personally think that such discussions are silly. Fortunately we don't have to agree on any interpretation, we just have to report how other people see it. --Art Carlson 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic Geocentrism

I'm interested in knowing any modern sources regarding catholic geocentrism. I've never heard any catholic priest state that the earth is the center of the universe, and I can't help but wonder if that part of the article is attempting to single out the catholic faith (I honestly hope I'm wrong).

Punga 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Until about 1500 A.D., western Christianity was Catholicism. After 1500 A.D., Protestantism became distinct from Catholicism, but most of the high-profile religious pronouncements or incidents over challenges to geocentrism involved Catholic authorities (though there were certainly prominent Protestant geocentrists also, during the first few centuries). AnonMoos 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Many Catholics believe in geocentrism, including the Kolbe Center (Catholic Creation organization), Phil Salza (An author, who also runs ScriptureCatholic.com), and Robert Sungenis. --72.80.42.210 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] (modern)

What is the technical difference between modern geocentrism and regular (classic?) geocentrism? I do not understand why they deserve different articles. The only difference between the theories is context. Jhalkompwdr 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism is a reaction to a scientific theory that is percieved as contrary to religious mores. Classical geocentrism was a working scientific theory. The former subject is an analysis of a facet of modern culture while the latter is more in the topic of history of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.187 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Physics expert requested on Gammay Ray Bursters and Red Shift

This topic is in need of attention from an expert on the subject.
The section or sections that need attention may be noted in a message below.

I tagged the Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations with {{Expert-subject|Physics}} because the first two subsections may be out of date or otherwise incorrect:

  • The Gamma Ray Bursts section quotes Katz's 2002 book claiming GRBs are found in a spherical shell and that therefore a dilemma exists - have recent GRB findings shown this is no longer so? Our article on GRBs makes no mention and recent GRBs would seem to contradict this. If so the section should be rewritten in the past tense.
    This is still correct because GRBs are at cosmological distances. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The Quantization of redshifts section makes claims that redshifts were observed to be quantized. Were they so observed, and if so, in which years and how much consensus was there? The section, which by the way needs citing througout, refers to studies, statistical methods, supporters and a minority of scientists, all unnamed. Can any flesh be put on these bones, and maybe the section improved to describe the state of science or belief at a particular time?

-Wikianon 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

  • There is almost zero consensus for redshift quantization beyond a trace due to large-scale structure. The only hold-outs are crumbums angry at the Big Bang. No one takes them seriously in the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If GRBs are at cosmological distances, then the amount of energy in the original bursts become extremely and unbelievably high.

Extreme - beyond a doubt. Unbelievable - not. The current consensus is that the power is tightly beamed, so the total power is dramatically lower than if you assume isotropy. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of those "crunbums" include Halton Arp. Who is the "community"? Establishment US big bang cosmologists? Arp is working in Germany. He is unable to work in the US. What does that mean?

It seems reasonable to use "community" and "establishment" as roughly synonymous. There is no country in the world whose cosmology establishment (if they have one) seriously doubts the Big Bang, so it has nothing to do with the US. I work in the same institute as Halton Arp, and I haven't heard a peep of doubt of the Big Bang. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyattmj (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Universal rotation

According to the first sentence, geocentrism is the belief that the earth neither moves nor rotates. For this to be true, the observed universe would have to rotate about the earth once every 24 hours, which implies some tremendous centripetal forces in action - or is there something implied in the term "inertial reference frame" that I'm missing? If so, it should be explained. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are "tremendous centripetal forces". They are produced by gravitomagnetism. This is mentioned in the section Modern geocentrism#"The inertial frame is the only special rotation.". Do you think we need to go into more detail here? Or should the reader rather go to the gravitomagnetism article for details? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General relativity?

The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special. The frame in which Sun is at rest or Sun is moving with a constant velocity are equivalent. Juggling sun around earth produces a load of systemic forces... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.49.127 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct. Please read the whole article including the section called "The inertial frame is the only special rotation.", then try to understand the basics of gravitomagnetism. If you are still confused after that, you are welcome to come back with your questions (at least to the extent that they may help improve the article). --Art Carlson (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical references section

This section, particularly with this recent edit, is much too long, and entails too much OR (and/or is unsourced) and POV ("Geocentrists tend to be careless or sloppy", "The problem with this interpretation, is ..."). Somebody needs to come through with a machete. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)