Talk:Modern geocentrism/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Reinserting Lense-Thirring

Lense Thirring is foundational to a rotating massive aether based geocentric theory. Please do not keep removing it.Truth_Seeker 05:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Art Carlson has done a good job reincorporating legitimate frame dragging in other parts of the article. The point is that geocentrists cannot claim the entire theory for themselves. Read the edit before you reinsert redundant material. 67.172.158.8

I've removed the claim that centrifugal or Coriolis forces are caused by frame dragging. They have nothing to do with frame dragging; see the relevant Wikipedia articles. Frame dragging is a very small effect unless you are near a rotating neutron star or black hole. Gene Ward Smith 21:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid the fictitious forces do or at least can have something to do with frame dragging. I tried to clarify the formulation in the article. Check with your physicist colleagues at Berkeley. Art Carlson 11:19, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Reversion of Truth_Seeker's last edit

I carefully went through every one of Truth_Seeker's edits. None of them were scientific and a few were absolutely incorrect. For example, the CMB(R) (Note: everyone in the field who does research on the microwave background calls it the CMB) paragraph contained aggregious factual errors (such as saying that nobody knows the origin of the CMB). More than that, the CMB restframe being different from Earth's does not seem to be a reasonable proof of geocentrism to me. 67.172.158.8 08:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I concur with 67.172.158.8 (known to his friends as 67). I would have reverted all of Truth seeker's latest round of edits myself, but 67 beat me to it. The only edit that I thought might have some merit was the simplification of "The observations", which I wrote before I was as smart as I am now. But some of the detail is important, especially the correlation of the length of the day with events on Earth. Art Carlson 08:45, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)

re-Reversion to Truth_Seeker's last edit

Let's discuss the changes point-by-point. I am open to some correction, but not all of it is incorrect.

POINT 1: Geocentrists, using a Lense-Thirring Effect universe create a framework wherein a stationary earth in a rotating universe have these properties.(Einstein citing Hans Thirring in his 1914 paper, General Relativity and Gravitation,Gron and Erickson, vol. 21, no. 2, pages 109-110,113, 117-118, 1989).
Einstein citing Hans Thirring in his 1914 paper: "Let the earth be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to the universe. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the universe’s coordinate system, while no such forces would be present for objects at rest with respect to the earth...Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."
General Relativity and Gravitation,Gron and Erickson, vol. 21, no. 2, pages 109-110,113, 117-118, 1989: "The rotational inertial dragging effect, which was discovered by Lense and Thirring, was later investigated by Cohen and Brill and by Orwig. It was found that in the limit of a spherical shell with a radius equal to its Schwarzchild radius, the interior inertial frames are dragged around rigidly with the same angular velocity as that of the shell. In this case of ‘perfect dragging,’ the motion of the inertial frames is completely determined by the shell...Einstein advocated a new interpretation of the fictitious forces in accelerated systems of reference. The “fictitious” forces were treated as real forces on the same footing as any other force of nature. The reason for the occurrence in accelerated systems of reference of such peculiar forces should, according to this new idea, be sought in the circumstance that the distant masses of the fixed stars are accelerated relative to these systems of reference. The “fictitious forces” are thus treated as a kind of gravitational force, the acceleration of the distant masses causing a “field of gravitation” in the system of reference considered. Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz., systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference. It can, however, be assumed that all systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics. This is the so-called general principle of relativity...As an illustration of the role of inertial dragging for the validity of the strong principle of relativity, we consider the Moon orbiting the Earth. As seen by an observer on the Moon, both the Moon and the Earth are at rest. If the observer solves Einstein’s field equations for the vacuum space-time outside the Earth, he might come up with the Schwarzchild solution and conclude that the Moon should fall toward the Earth, which it does not. So it seems impossible to consider the Moon at rest, which would imply that the strong principle of relativity is not valid...This problem has the following solution. As observed from the Moon the cosmic mass rotates. The rotating cosmic mass has to be included when the Moon observer solves Einstein’s field equations. Doing this he finds that the rotating cosmic mass induces the rotational non-tidal gravitational field which is interpreted as the centrifugal field in Newtonian theory. This field explains to him why the Moon does not fall toward the Earth."
Wrong. The geocentric universe does not have the property that "certain forces, whether they are considered fictitious or gravitomagnetic, vanish there". This point is made in your citation in the following way: "Only when we work in special systems of reference, viz., systems of inertia, it is not necessary to include the distant masses in our considerations, and this is the only point which distinguishes the systems of inertia from other systems of reference." Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Accepted. Though I question whether there truly is any inertial reference frame in the universe.Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No need to question it, a "truly inertial reference frame" exists because we can declare it to be the truly inertial reference frame. --67 (at a different computer).
POINT 2: The evidence cited for choosing cosmological distances is that the bursters appear isotropically distributed (www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/astroII/l5.html).
That's not the only evidence. The others include looking a burst afterglows, hosts, etc. And if you accept a "center of the bursts" idea of the universe, you'll have to, as a geocentrist, explain why the bursts trace the universe.
Only two possible interpretations exist to explain the isotropy: the earth is at the center of the universe (not considered by most scientists),
Actually, as was said before, it would be the center of the burst distribution.
and the bursters are close (thus leading to an isotropic distribution)

Actually, if the bursts are close, Earth need not be at the center of the universe (just at the center of the burst spatial distribution).

or the bursters are at cosmological distances and The edge of the spatial distribution centered on us is really an edge to the temporal distribution, which is converted to an isotropic spatial distribution by the finite speed of light. Since most scientists today will not consider geocentrism, even if the evidence supports it, the first possibility is dismissed (or not even considered) by most of them.
The first possibility is dismissed because it is observed to be incorrect. When we measure redshifts of the bursts, it is found that they are at cosmological distances. We have even resolved host galaxies for the GRBs, so there is no real opportunity left for the GRBs to be close.
BUT... EVEN IF THEY WERE CLOSE, this would not be a confirmation of geocentrism: only a confirmation that the GRBs were surrounding Earth isotropically.
Having the gamma ray bursters at closer distances leads to the possibility of much more reasonable energy levels for gamma ray bursts.
See website referenced
I read it, but it appears that you didn't. The isotropy argument is only of historical interest. In the intro: "The nature of these objects remained a great mystery until the 1990s, when they were finally seen also in the X-ray region, followed shortly by identification in the optical and radio. They are now known to at great distances and amongst the most luminous energy releases by any objects in the universe." And again in the conclusion: "For about 10 bursters an optical identification has been made with a host galaxy, for which the redshift, and hence distance, can be measured." Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
I will look more into this. I do understand what you are saying.Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
POINT 3: A similar argument to that of gamma ray bursters can be made relative to the CMB. Scientists do not know what the CMB is. Theories range from a remnant of the big bang to the temperature of stellar radiation. In any case it is observable, and after an extensive 2dF (2 degree of field) redshift survey of galaxies Max Tegnmark of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey stated: "Our entire observable universe is inside this sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years, with us at the center." He made a similar argument regarding an apparent isotropic spatial distribution, but again, the interpretation of earth at the center of the universe is also possible.
Follows from last point.
Same as last point.Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The consensus is that the CMB is a "remnant of the big bag". Period. There is no evidence that is inconsistent with this interpretation. The statement about the "sphere of radius 13.3 billion light-years" only makes sense within this interpretation. Otherwise there is no basis for the statement and therefore it cannot be in any way considered evidence for a geocentric universe. Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Tha is a consensual opinion. I need more solid references if I want to challenge it. For now I will leave it. Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
POINT 4: More recent observations of galaxy-quasar pairs with immense red-shift discrepancies have been made, keeping the debate open.
Govert Schilling, “New results reawaken quasar distance dispute,” Science, Octorber 11, 2002
galaxy NGC 7603 and its companion quasar each had very different redshifts but were physically linked by a luminous bridge. The authors concluded it was “the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far” (M. Lopez-Corredoira and C. Gutierrez, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2002, 390, pp. L15-18).
We've already been over this. Are you listening?
  1. A quasar and a galaxy can be superimposed by chance. The only way to prove they are at the same distance is to show that there are more superpositions than can be explained by chance. Statistics.
  2. If quasars are associated with galaxies, that proves that at least some redshifts are not related to distance, so that redshift quantization cannot be used to infer geo-concentric shells.
Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
I do not think so. Galaxies are not supposed to be at cosmological distances. Quasars are.
BOTH galaxies and quasars are at cosmological distances. We have seen host galaxies for quasars that prove that they are in very distant galaxies. You need to read more of the cutting edge observations and less from those on the fringe if you're going to be able to argue at all.
Something has gotten to give. I need to study more the possible indirect distance relations redshift (i.e., not Doppler, but perhaps more indirect)Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please understand that geocentrists need to have a quantization model AND the redshift-distance relation to make the point in the article. If you are questioning the latter, then the entire discussion should be removed.
POINT 5: There are many observations to be explained by any cosmological theory. Withoiut going into too much detail, it can be stated these include motions of planets, satellites and other objects in our solar system; motions, rotations, etc. of distant galaxies; forces on earth, the solar system, and the universe, amongst ohers.
Simplifiaction only (approved tentatively by original author (Art Carlson).
Oversimplification. I do not approve of your version in its present form. Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
Fine. This is not important to me. I was just trying to remove a lot of detail which cannot be addressed in this article. If I adressed every point (even with possible explanations), I am sure the article would get out of hand.Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
POINT 6: Recognizing the inability of gravitational and mechanical models to explain the Coriolis effect, geocentrists often invoke frame dragging, also known as the Lense-Thirring effect. This effect is a often claimed as a subtle consequence of general relativity and has only recently been demonstrated by sensitive satellite experiments. In fact Lense and Thirring developed the theory for a geocentric universe model (and later for the universe as a spinning disk). It predicts, for example, that a gyroscope near the Earth will not remain fixed relative to the stars, but will rotate a tiny amount in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. The relevance for geocentrists is that a rotating universe (possibly including a massive aether), will cause frame dragging at the Earth, which will have the same form as the Coriolis force. If, in fact, the universe is rotating as claimed by geocentrists, then the Lense-Thirring effect accounts for what are otherwise defined as fictituous forces with real physical forces, i.e., the centrifgal and Coriolis forces have real physical explanations relative to the reference frame of a stationary earth. Geocentrists sometimes carry the argument farther and believe that the daily rotation of the stars around the Earth causes gravity, as well. .(Einstein citing Hans Thirring in his 1914 paper, General Relativity and Gravitation,Gron and Erickson, vol. 21, no. 2, pages 109-110,113, 117-118, 1989, Einstein letter to Ernst Mach on June 25, 1913: "If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by the shell experiences an accelerative force. If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through it center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around.")
Not disputed. I insist on keeping a strong section regarding LT Effect.
This is the third time we've been through this one, too. Don't you realize you have won? I started out doubting your statements that the Lense-Thirring effect could describe a geocentric universe. I was wrong. That is why this belongs up front, in the section on mainstream science, not down there with the oddball aether and small universe theories. Art Carlson 21:51, 2004 Dec 14 (UTC)
I will look at it. Granted it is there, buried in arguments about there being no "true" frame. On the other hand you do mention an "Actual" rotating frame in the intro. I would like to see the importance of Lense-Thirring for geo-centrism rephrased to be less complex to lay readers. Also, aether is not that oddball.
Aether is VERY oddball as it was abandoned as a model in the early part of this century.
Pretty much it is accepted that space is not an empty vacuum. It has impedance, and is believed to have structure. Dark matter, space foam,...I know I am preaching to the choir, but why can't you admit that modern cosmology has pretty much had to bring aether back through the rear entrance? Truth_Seeker 05:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Because the aether is what light propagates through and has a spatial dependence (as opposed to a space-time dependence). If you want to postulate that spacetime is the "aether", then you're going to have to deal with general relativity, accept Michelson-Morley as being a lack of spatial (that is inertial-velocity) variance wrt the speed of light, and abandon any hope of having a preferred reference frame. I'm pretty sure you don't want to do that, therefore, it's a good idea to keep the aether section as something that harkens back to the original ideas of aether in the sense of the medium through which light propagates rather than claim it isn't oddball.

These are the major changes I made. Please comment on them individually. Truth_Seeker 20:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edits of 21 December

After due consideration I, Art Carlson 21:20, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC), reverted the edits of 69.175.55.0 for the following reasons:

This type of geocentrist is often also a "galactocentrist", believeing that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. The galactocentrist typically has less confidence in geocentric interpretations of the Bible, but sees a "specialness" in the statistical chance of our planet and its galaxy being at the center of the universe(see www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i2/galaxy.asp).

“galactocentrist” is certainly not a common term (see Google), and I doubt that it is a common belief. In astronomy, “galactocentric” has a different meaning.

The belief in a small, non-expanding universe requires the rejection of the redshift of stars as a direct, reproducible, and universal measure of their distance or recessional velocity.

No, it also requires the rejection as an indirect, imperfect, and partial measure as well.

similar to the unsolved problem modern scientists face with the need for instanatenously transmitted gravitational forces.

Gravitational forces are believed to be transmitted at the speed of light. I will try to formulate a statement that refers to the collapse of the wave packet.

==Geocentrists View of "the [contrary] modern scientific point of view"==

There are many false statements here. If there is some substance that I have missed, why can’t it be included under “Description of the Modern Geocentric Model”?

Geocentrists and some modern scientists question the astronomical amounts of energy required to explain the intensities and durations of gamma rays at such distances. A recent such explosion was referred to as "the second most powerful explosion in the universe since the big-bang".

No modern scientists doubt anymore that GBRs produce astronomical amounts of energy. If this is an important belief of geocentrists, it needs to be fleshed out (or we can say, as before, "without any particular reason").

Even if the distance relatiuon is questionable, the quantization still implies centricity.

How’s that again? If redshifts are not related to distance, how can they imply anything at all about 3D geometry?

Even those who performed the study admitted that if quantization is occuring, its effect would be very subtle in the data subset chosen for the analysis.

"admitted" is POV. If you’d like, we could say (as I did in an earlier version): Both those who see quantization of redshifts and those who do not, agree that the effect, if it exists, is at best very subtle.

The observations can only be explained by separate centrifugal and Coriolis forces, or local rotations of aether due to transfer of angular momentum in a possibly anisotropic aether distribution.

This statement makes absolutely no sense. However, you may try to explain it, you certainly do need a distance-dependent repulsive force (centrifugal) and a velocity-dependent transverse force (Coriolis).

Stars embedded in the aether

Truth_Seeker has removed

whereas this time a luminiferous aether not rotating with the stars is meant.

with the statement that "stars embedded in aether".

This makes no sense to me. If the stars are embedded in the aether, how can it possibly be that the Earth isn't?

Normally, I would ask this question and leave the edit stand, but Truth_Seeker's track record with editing has caused me to be suspicious. Until he responds here, I will revert. 67.172.158.8 22:06, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The earth is stationary in the center of the aether field. This is due to gravitational force cancellation at the center, and gyroscopic stabilization. An analogy is a hurricane- still center, rotating outer shell. Actually the MM experiements did have a small positive result in 39 of the cases. Future experiments with more sensitive instruments (Dalton Miller, I believe, and others) verified the small positive result. This could be due a weak interaction of the aether and the earth. It clearly was not the aether wind being tested for by MM. 69.175.55.0 20:10, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's not very clear. It sounds like you are saying that the aether rotates with the stars, so that the velocity of the aether wind at the surface of the Earth should be 465 m/s at the equator. It sounds like you are saying the "small positive result" found in some Michelson-Morley experiments experiments can be attributed to this velocity. It further sounds like you believe in Newtonian/Galilean mechanics, that is, no length contraction or time dilation at all. Is that it?
If so, it doesn't hold up. In the Wiki article on the Michelson-Morley experiment, it is stated "More modern experiments have reduced this to under 1/30th km/s." In other words, modern MM experiments are ten times more sensitive than they need to be to rule out your hypothesis. The state of the measurements should be made clear in the article. Also, of course, the beliefs of modern geocentrists, if we can pin that down. It still sounds to me like they tend to believe in one aether when they talk about theoretical explanations and another when they talk about MM, and that should be stated in the article.
Art Carlson 20:59, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

“If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong.”

Obviously, if there is a difference in the speed of light, then relativity is wrong. What this has to do with geocentrism is beyond me. 67.172.158.8 06:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the aether was carried along by the earth...The third solution was that the aether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again."(Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107) (Ibid., p. 110)

This is a correct presentation of the three options. What isn't mentioned here (and is, incidentally, mentioned below) is that Einstein wasn't surprised by MM's result. He thought it to be a no-brainer as it naturally follows from his special relativity assumptions. 67.172.158.8 06:47, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Biblical evidence"

I don't like that being used. IMO it should either be removed or heftily rewritten

Nobody would come up with the idea of being a geocentrist in this day and age unless there were biblical evidence. If you leave out this section you might as well throw out the whole article. What exactly don't you like about it? Do you have any concrete suggestions about how to improve it? Art Carlson 16:11, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)
I think it is needed. I will try and expand upon it. 69.175.55.0 20:12, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Biblical Evidence". Something from the bible shouldn't be regarded as evidence for anything. Really.

Michelson-Morley experiment reference removed

I removed reference to Michelson-Morley all together as it seems utterly superfluous. The experiment's result with a stationary Earth would naively support a luminiferous medium which is rejected by the geocentrists, so for them to claim that the result is due to a stationary or geocentric Earth makes no sense. 67.172.158.8 03:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's all right by me, and it probably puts geocentrists in the best possible light, but I'm not sure if you can get away with it. I think in any extended discussion with a geocentrist you will sooner or later hear that MM supports them. If that's true, we would need to report that they believe this, and of course also report that this belief contradicts other beliefs they hold and/or scientific observations. Art Carlson 10:18, 2004 Dec 24 (UTC)
Well, this is somewhat awkward. If the geocentrists are using Michelson-Morley and they don't think their ether is luminiferous, then how does any result from Michelson-Morley mean anything? If that question is answered then maybe we can see where to include it in the article.
In response to this, I decided to reintroduce Michelson-Morley in a more succinct fashion. Hope this works. 67.172.158.8 16:50, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have clarified the geocentrists position relative to MM. Geocentrists mainly cite it as evidence of the existence of aether. Einstein is actually the only one to rush to the conclusion that the MM experiments could be posited as a stationary earth. This led to the theory of relativity!!!

Not correct. Einstein developed relativity with no knowledge of MM. When the experiment was brought to his attention later in life he didn't view it as a confirmation of his theory (though it is, by your standpoint), but rather as a rather obvious result that he was surprised anybody thought was worth observing. Einstein was convinced of gauge invariance for EM waves strictly from Special Relativity and didn't believe in aether from the getgo. I have removed the section about Einstein from the article. 67.172.158.8 01:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Geocentrists are open to aether having luminiferous propertiesd, but do not depend on it; though clearly there should be some interaction between light and aether.

Merry Christmas Art & "67". Truth_Seeker 22:11, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Truth_Seeker needs to stop editting

Truth_Seeker, your reversions and edits are consistently problematic and incorrect. This is the third time in two days I've had to revert back to a previous version because your version is incorrect. Lense-Thirring IS a part of GR: read the article that refers to it if you don't believe me. 67.172.158.8 21:32, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it more correct to say that the LT effect was formulated in the context of GR? I am not denying its relativistic roots. Truth_Seeker 05:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will try to address this in the article. 67.172.158.8 03:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revert 12/31/04

This tidbit escaped me:

, and the fact that current cosmology cannot disprove the hypothesis of a geocentric system. In fact due to Einstein's equivalence principle and Mach's principle if the simple act of making a coordinate transform from the CMB (or any chosen reference) to a fixed earth occured, all observations of motions and forces made from earth or our solar system (or the universe, actually) would still be accounted for (albeit the forces may be accounted for differently), and relative to an observer on earth or in the solar system, a differentiation between to two has not been carried out, and may be impossible. The only issue facing the geocentrist is accounting for the origin and mechanism of the forces and motions. This is a similar problem faced by current cosmology; though the current cosmology is in a much further state of development.

There are a number of statements wrong with this. First of all, the "proof" issue in science is ambiguous to begin with, but general relativity (not cosmology) shows that there is no prefered reference frame.

General Relativity is teh corner stone of current cosmology.Truth_Seeker 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Actually the observational evidence is the cornerstone. GR is just the framework.

This is discussed at length in the article.

The remainder of the statement is either redundant or blatantly false. The geocentrist must go beyond the statement made in GR that one can fully describe the entirety of the universe's physical laws in a geocentric frame and actually state a scientific reason that the geocentric frame is prefered or special. As yet, the only motivation for this is Biblical references or Church statements which is rightly referenced at the end of the intro paragraph. This is why the material was removed. 67.172.158.8 01:43, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Again, the science is also improtant. If science could demonstrate that the earth were not the center, many geocentrists would accept this.Truth_Seeker 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I also added a quote from Born regarding the equivalence of geocentric and heliocentric reference frames in GR. (Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962 Dover edition, pgs. 344 and 34). This is a real gem to shore up the points you discuss in a manner intended for the layman.Truth_Seeker 22:21, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The quote doesn't mean anything in terms of modern geocentrism. The rest of the article stands well without it, and it looks much like a red herring where you put it. I am reverting.

Modern Geocentrism is not cosmology

There is nothing cosmological about it. It makes no predictions that distinguish it as a cosmology, nor does it state anything about any of the cosmological implications of its practice. If you want to categorize it as "religious dogma" or even "creation science", fine, but it isn't cosmology. 128.138.96.220 20:27, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's an interesting question -- how should pseudoscience be categorized? I could live with "cosmology" as long as it's qualified with "pseudoscience" as well. Similarly, I would expect to find homeopathy & co. somewhere down the tree of medicine. I don't like the thought of mainstream scientists declaring what does and what does not belong into their field too much -- I prefer them to make it easy to find popular misconceptions (and debunk them). Rl 22:47, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That would be fine, RI, if Modern Geocentrism was actually about cosmology. But it really isn't. It's about a religious perspective about the proper perspective one should take when calculating orbits, for example.

Reversion of anonymous edits of 2005-02-18

Geocentrists reject the notion that the CMB is a preferred reference frame, since in the Geocentric system, the CMB is [likely] rotating, and thus could not be considered inertial. Also, Geocentrists realize that in mapping the CMB, scientists needed to make the explicit assumption that the earth was rotating in order to process the data (remove asymmetric dipoles).

What geocentrists believe, does not belong in the "The [contrary] modern scientific point of view" section. Besides, neither statement makes sense. Art Carlson 10:26, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

* Sungenis, Robert, private correspondence.

Listing "private correspondence" as a "General Reference" is completely useless. Is that supposed to be an invitation to contact Sungenis if I want more information? Art Carlson 10:26, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)

I agree. This is not an acceptable reference for Wiki. 203.213.77.138 05:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Creationism

I see no clear and direct connection between modern geocentrism and creationism. This is reflected in the fact that the Modern Geocentrism article cannot be reached through the hierarchy in the box. (Can it?) Should a subheading like Biblical literalism be added? Art Carlson 10:48, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

Many of the most prominent Modern Geocentrists are also creationists and see their creationism as part-and-parcel to their geocentrism. The connection can be seen from their own references. For example, Bouw is obviously a profound creationist as is Sungenis and both are that way "because of" geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 00:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is unconscionable to censor out perfectly good creationist geokineticist answers to creationist geocentrists. Reference frames is a perfectly good scientific point, and it was proper to show that Hoyle affirmed this. I am not even sure why this article isn't part of the main geocentrism article. 203.213.77.138 05:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We've had quite the discussion about this, 203. Please refer to this page. While jumping into editting is what we want at Wikipedia, reverting reversions by competent editors is not acceptable. Joshuaschroeder 14:22, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So stop reverting 203, Schroeder!! 138.130.201.204 17:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
? 203's edits were all problematic. Discussion of them here can take place. This isn't a page about creationists who aren't geocentrists, it's a page about modern geocentrism. Joshuaschroeder 17:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Schroeder hasn't refuted a single thing, and just chops. So discuss already before you raise your axe again!! And NPOV requires that modern geocentrist (mis)use of the Bible is countered by other Bible-believers who see it differently, i.e. reference frames. 138.130.201.204 17:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article has to define and explain its lemma. Its plain nonsense to discuss here rather different point, because they are interesting. --Pjacobi 14:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

<<This isn't a page about creationists who aren't geocentrists, it's a page about modern geocentrism.>>
interesting. critiques of geocentrism by creationists are inappropriate on the geocentrism page, but critiques of creationism by evolutionists should replace, outnumber, and sandwich creationist views on the creationism page. what might his agenda be in this matter? Ungtss 15:00, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but I won't accept your view, to put "creationist" and "evolutionists" on equal basis. The main POV in all articles on natural sciences is the view of the scientific community. So, of course, in this article on Modern geocentrism, the scientific arguments have to be presented. --Pjacobi 15:20, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

<<The main POV in all articles on natural sciences is the view of the scientific community.>>

perhaps a quick glance at npov#Pseudoscience would clarify that there is no main pov, anywhere, ever. npov explicitly requires that articles take a neutral stance on pseudoscience, NOT a "scientific point of view." According to the articulated rules and policies of wikipedia, creationists and evolutionists are on equal ground. in practice, of course, creationist views are bullied, excluded, and censored into oblivion, despite their absolute conformance to wikipedia policy, because people like mr. schroeder are afraid of them. this particular case involves a cited, factual pov on a critique of geocentrism by a creationist, written in npov fashion. there is absolutely no excuse for its exclusion. zero. Ungtss 15:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You mis-interpret the NPOV rules. Of course, Creationism (and Hollow earth, Welteislehre, etc) get their proper stage time and fair treatment in their own articles. But this doesn't imply, that every article on geology has to present the Hollow earth view and every article on cosmology has to present the Creationism view. --Pjacobi 16:03, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Geocentrism appears on the creationism template, and according to its adherents (and especially mr. schroeder), is a mode of creationism. it is also typically used as a way to discredit creationism as a whole (guilt by association). creationist views are indispensible to a discussion on it, due to its tight association with creationists, particularly in the mind of mr. schroeder. Ungtss 16:20, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And that is the main reason Schroeder has deleted 203's balancing edits. 138.130.201.204 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where the geocentrism overlaps with creationism, the topic is relevent and is included in the article. Otherwise it is not. That's why 203's edits were excluded. Joshuaschroeder 16:41, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

would you please explain why the text you deleted does not overlap with creationism, since it is composed of creationist views on geocentrism? Ungtss 16:46, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The text deleted is a POV on the overlap rather than a description of the overlap (which is present now). Joshuaschroeder 21:52, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Your "description" is one pov among three of the overlap. you are failing to distinguish between your pov and objective reality, stating your pov as objective reality, and excluding all pov's that differ from your own. Nothing new. Ungtss 22:09, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

@Ungtss: In my reading, the article in the form current (Joshuaschroeder) state carefully avoids to confuse geocentrism and creationism and explains the differences. If you think, there is bad formulation, please highlight it. I agree, that placing this article in Category:creationism may give a false impression, but it is a inherent weakness of the category system, that you can't give a "fits definition x%" qualifier to the inclusion. On the issue of Template:Creationism: I'd put it Wikipedia:Templates for deletion anytime, if I'd see any chance of enough delete votes. In the german wikipedia we outruled such "theme rings" templates by policy, as they lead to arbitrary and POV grouping of articles. --Pjacobi 16:51, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on the template, and you may be right: such projects may be doomed to failure.
as to the differences, i agree that the article provides that the two communities are separate, and provides the mainstream and geocentrist views of the difference:
("Modern geocentrists today believe that they are the true standard-bearers for an appropriate amalgamation of science and religion. In particular, Geraldus Bouw has claimed "Invariably, those [creationists] who do take more than a cursory look [at geocentricity] become geocentrists.") without providing the creationist view on geocentrism (the cited articles which were deleted).
and
"The invocation of supernatural motivations for disagreeing with the scientific mainstream is a similar-type endeavor to that of creation science or creationism. However, there have been strains between the two communities over whether a biblically based view of the natural world requires geocentrism or not. The most prominent creationist societies (specifically Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research) explicitly reject the absolute geocentric perspective and some bitterness has ensued over the rejection by creationist journals (such as TJ) of modern geocentric articles, and promotion of geokineticist articles"

However, the article does not address the difference as seen by CREATIONISTS, which were articulated in the deleted quotes. creationists think geocentrists are making a big deal out of nothing, because it's all frame of reference. that perspective is absent from the article.

the article as it stands fails to explain what CREATIONISTS think of the difference. the cited quotes provide that perspective. now, given that, what overriding importance is there in deleting the articles? ~~

I've made a printout of the article to re-read it carefully in the light of your view. --Pjacobi 17:18, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
Schroeder is just an anti-Christian troll who keeps deleting stuff that challenges his ignorant caricature that the Bible really does teach absolute geocentrism. It is perfectly fair to point out that the heliocentist pioneers also firmly defended biblical truth (in their view), and that many biblical creationists argue that it's a matter of reference frames, just as Hoyle said.
For example, the article cites Bouw's claim that absolute geocentrism is the only consistent biblical position, yet Schroeder vandalizes challenges. And the article cites alleged biblical support, but Schroeder vandalizes balancing viewpoints. 138.130.201.204 02:00, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A well-written addition to the article will gladly be included. Appropriate inclusion of examination of the evidence is good and should be considered. But "scriptural critique" is best left to another page. The "balancing viewpoints" are not written in the way that makes them "balancing", but rather in a way that makes them proselytizing. If you want to write caveat emptors, look at how long it took for us to come up with the compromise page in the first place. That's the NPOV process. Joshuaschroeder 14:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
<<A well-written addition to the article will gladly be included.>>
If the inclusion is not well-written, improve it. do not revert. you are misusing reverts, and in the process have violated the 3RR, as noted on your rfc.
<<But "scriptural critique" is best left to another page.>>
Why, since the supposed "scriptural basis" for geocentrism is on this page, is a critique on the basis of scripture inappropriate.?
<<That's the NPOV process.>>
the npov process does not permit any of the actions in which you are currently engaged. you are currently engaged in flagrant violations of npov on three different creationist pages, by cutting out cited summaries of creationist ideas. Ungtss 14:43, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By "well written", Schroeder means, "not answering his POV which is to caricaturize the Bible as teaching geocentrism. His hypocrisy is glaring -- he wants to include this page as under the "creationism" category, but censors out creationist disagreement with absolute geocentrism.
It is hardly "proselytizing" to point out that even Sir Fred Hoyle thinks that it's just a matter of transformation of coordinates from one reference frame to another. 138.130.201.204 04:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

civility

my good friend 138, i've learned from experience that personal attacks in edit summaries do not work -- they only raise the egos of those you're editing against, to the point of ceasing to listen to reason, and in the process, you lose your credibility and risk rfc. your edits are good ... you're absolutely right ... but try and keep it cool. it's just wikipedia after all:). If you've got other diffs that demonstrate the extent of his pov campaign, put 'em on his rfc:). Ungtss 02:03, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All the same, I tried to be reasonable and make compromise suggestions and these trolls still take a bazooka to anything that counters their POV agenda. They are doing the same thing in creationist cosmologies. Once more, there is a section on "arguments creationists still use" and they keep deleting one major one. And they persist in blatantly POV claims such as a critique is "damaging" and removing links to answers to these critiques.138.130.201.204 02:30, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. Schroeder's edits are absolutely unjustified and just a continuation in his pov campaign of terror on these pages. there is no apology for his behavior. I'm simply suggesting that incivility will not work in achieving our mutual goal of npov on these pages -- incivility will only hurt us, and won't hurt him at all -- he doesn't care what you think, anyway. you have all the right cards in your hand -- if you play them right, you're bound to win the hand. but if you start yelling at the other cardplayers, they'll kick you off the table:(. Ungtss 02:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hokay. But we should still stick to our guns against these POV vandals. 138.130.201.204 07:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed:). meanwhile, i'm going to incorporate many of the FACTS you are providing over at Wikiproject:FACTS for that glorious day when npov is permitted on these pages:). Ungtss 14:38, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Both of you are inches from crossing a sad and costly line here. Ungtss, you promote your particular POV agressively as much, often more so, than anyone. There's a page or two in RfC that are testament to that, so you have little room to start mischaracterizing Joshuaschroeder's edits as 'absolutely unjustified and 'a continuation in his pov campaign of terror.' That's blatant character assination and you're only to be able to get away with it for so many times before someone takes action again. Frankly, I expected better from you, considering your piety worn on the sleeve and it's putative moral benefits.
1) I claim no piety, much less on my sleeve, and i never have. my belief system is not one of piety, but of reality.
2) This was no more a character assassination than the rfc against me.
3) The above comments were intended to stop the personal attacks without denying that was 138 is saying is true (and it is indeed true, but no justification for personal attacks).
4) Schroeder has violated the 3rr and removes swaths of cited and quotes statements by scholars without any attempt at justification in this case. I have made no edits to this page. Ungtss 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
38.130.201.204, continually labeling Joshuaschroeder a 'POV vandal' is considered a form personal attack. Joshuaschroeder is entitled to his POV and to edit it into articles within the policies. Doing so is not vandalism. It's also highly hypocritical of you considering it's coming from someone so clearly bent of promoting his particular POV to the exclusion of other POVs. You're relatively new, but not so new that you can claim ignorance of the policies. You need to stop making personal attacks in your edit summary comments and on Talk pages.--FeloniousMonk 09:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Excuse me for breathing. I don't just wipe whole sections (complete with referencing) just because I don't like them. I did transfer one part to the ordinary geocentrism article, but that keeps the information intact. 138.130.201.204 03:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why reverted

The statement is already present that most people consider the interpretation of a geocentric universe from those passages to be incorrect. There is no reason to go into exegetical analysis.

Furthermore, the additional critiques that were included were not sufficiently original to add to the article. I'm not sure why the creationism template was removed. Joshuaschroeder 13:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason "exegetical analysis" is necessary is to explain why creationists think that geocentrism has no basis in scripture. it is relevent to the article because the article quite clearly draws a link between geocentrists and creationists, provides your pov on the link and the geocentrist view on the link, but does NOT provide any creationist views on the FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES. the quotes are cited and sourced. they are relevent. there is absolutely no justification for their deletion.
your sole argument for why they should be deleted is "the statement is already present tha tmost people consider the interpretation of a geocentrist universe from those passages to be incorrect." however, what is absent is a coherent explanation of WHY. again. the quotes are cited, sourced, and explain WHY.
your sole conceivable motive in removing these views is to maintain the illusion that creationism and geocentrism are equivalent, and censor any explanation by creationists as to why geocentrism has no substantive basis in the bible. Ungtss 18:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. If these biblical references are in there at all, and this is allegedly a creationism category page, then NPOV makes it essential to explain why most creationists are not absolute geocentrists (starting with the founders!).138.130.201.204 04:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with this. A more detailed explanation of the debate could be included in the history section, for example. Joshuaschroeder 07:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Then rework the material rather than censoring it. If my posting of biblical geokineticist responses is censored once more, the whole "biblical reference" section will go too, because it is so POV as it stands (the POV that Schroeder wants to tar all creationists with the geocentric tag or portry them as inconsistent with Scripture for disagreeing with flakes like Bouw).203.213.77.138 05:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not expert on this an it's obvious you are inserting POV to me. Please work on your phrasing ok? --Alterego 03:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

suggestions? Ungtss 04:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Alterego, then make the suggestions as Ungtss says. Don't just chop. In fact, the whole point is that it WAS POV, in particular that geocentrism is the consistent biblical creationist position. After all, it was in the creationism category. But Alterego and Schroeder keep chopping out legitimate creationist dissents from geocentrism, backed up by leading cosmologists. How is it POV to point out how many creationists regard the allegedly geocentric passages as merely using the earth as a reference frame, as we do today with words like "sunset"?138.130.201.204 04:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
well said, sir:). there's was a similar delete at creation anthropology recently that you might be interested in. Ungtss 04:11, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanx, had a look there and put a few things in. What in particular? 138.130.201.204 04:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
schroeder's last edit, in which he deletes a cited quote from an article about creation anthropology. his argument on the vfd is that the topic doesn't exist. interesting how he deletes quotes from articles describing the topic in detail:). Ungtss 04:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not objecting to "legitimate dissent" whether it be from creationists or ancient geocentrists or magicians. Anyone can dissent. The question is, is the dissent worthy of inclusion in this article. I'm objecting to irrelevent, inaccurate, and misleading "dissents" done by 138 (mostly irrelevent, but there were inaccurate and mmisleading ones too). I am willing to discuss individual edits on the talkpage, but it seems that the editor inserting hasn't desired to pursue such a course of action.

Nonsense, Schroeder. I'll work with people I disagree with, providing that there is genuine attempts to work together, not blast edits away.138.130.200.94 13:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the history of geocentrism section there is quite a bit on explaining the connection (if any) between geocentrism and creationism. Please add to that part if you are interested in expanding the critique.

Exactly what I and other anon did!!138.130.200.94 13:34, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The geocentrism category makes sense because we are dealing with a view that is possibly (and according to adherents to the theory totally) associated with an idealization of God creating the universe. Therefore the categorization sticks. If you object to this, it must be because you are a creationist who is not a geocentrist. This is fine, but you don't have the right to say that just because you don't believe in geocentricity that means that there are no creationists who believe in geocentricity or that geocentricity isn't a part of creationism. Joshuaschroeder 07:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is you who have no right to portray this as the only view among creationists by deleting legitimate dissent by censoring dissent.203.213.77.138 05:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Schroeder is being disingenuous again. Who was saying that there were not creationists who believe in absolute geocentrism? Schroeder is the one who is trying to suppress the truth that the majority of creationists are not absolute geocentrists, and present sound reasons why not. Furthermore, there is nothing that makes geocentrism a part of creationism, since it possible to be a geocentrist without any view on creation.138.130.200.94 13:26, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well said. guilt by association, even at the expense of reality. i gotta tell you. when i came to wikipedia, I was a relative agnostic on the question of creation/evolution. 6 months of these tactics, logical fallacies, vacuous arguments, and outright lies has turned me into a die-hard creationist:). Ungtss 13:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

<<The question is, is the dissent worthy of inclusion in this article. I'm objecting to irrelevent, inaccurate, and misleading "dissents" done by 138 (mostly irrelevent, but there were inaccurate and mmisleading ones too).>>

1) who, other than you, is authorized to determine what is irrelevent, inaccurate, and/or misleading?
Anyone. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit.
if anyone can determine what is relevent, why does mr. 138 have absolutely no say on the content of this page? why is there no compromise with anyone, ever? and out of curiosity, can you demonstrate a single instance of you compromising with anyone with whom you disagree on a creationist page? Ungtss 03:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Note that Schroeder has demonstrated no error in any of my edits. He just censors instead. In articles on creationist topics, Schroeder is determined to flood them with anti-creationist diatribes. In articles on flaky operational science, Schroeder is determined to tar all creationists with this brush.138.130.200.94 13:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
2) does your monopology on determinations of what is bad editing admit to any discussion among people who actually hold one of the povs involved?
Yes.
I have yet to see any. The 3 other people that signed your RfC agree. Ungtss 03:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3) what evidence have you provided to indicate that these edits fit the above characterizations?
The evidence is above.
Nobody can see it but you. Ungtss 03:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What may be included in articles

Some censors need a reminder:

The following are examples of allowable claims, research, and views (as long as they are verifiable and sources are cited):
  1. listing well-known claims which have few (or possibly just one or two) adherents (e.g. Shakespearean authorship theories or Linus Pauling's advocacy of Vitamin C);
  2. listing notable claims which contradict established axioms, theories, or norms (e.g morphogenetic fields or conspiracy theories);
  3. including research that fails to provide the possibility of reproducible results (e.g. :#theological or philosophical theories);
  4. citing viewpoints that violate Occam's Razor, the principle of choosing the simplest explanation when multiple viable explanations are possible (e.g. Phlogiston, Aether).

If (1) is permitted, then how much more the majority of views by creationists in an article in the "Creationism" category. Esp. as it is well cited (Hoyle). So are the well referenced points that leading cosmologists agree that it's a philosophical choice to use a no-center framework.203.213.77.138 05:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

138 aka 203
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/138.130.194.229#Later additions to summary, and resulting discussion
believes he has presented a "majority view" that he just plain hasn't done.
Excuse me, Schroeder is the one trying to suppress the fact that creationists dissent from geocentrism and explain why, and in fact the major creationist organisations DO reject absolute geocentrism.203.213.77.138 08:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no substance to the additions he is trying to see included.
Only in schroeder's arrogant and ignorant opinion. Don't expect Schroeder to actually demonstrate any error.203.213.77.138
First of all, he thinks that the "no center" cosmological argument isn't well discussed in the article otherwise for reasons that mystify me.
the philosophical considerations most definitely are not discussed in the version Schroeder wants.203.213.77.138 08:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
His inclusion of a much worse paragraph is simply ludicrous. The revert stands until 138 aka 203 learns to work with other people. Joshuaschroeder 22:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I have placed a two versions tag on the page, so that the world will have an alternative to "the mind of schroeder." Ungtss 22:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Ungtss. I will give 138/203 chance to respond to my comments here. First of all, I'd like for him to show that the scientists he listed as YEC were in fact YEC in the sense of the definition provided in Wikipedia.

Argue with Provine!!

Secondly, I'd like for him to demonstrate that the subject of no absolute frames isn't well-addressed in the article as is. Once the edits are agreed to accordingly, the tag will be removed.

So who is this judge and jury making such decrees?203.213.77.138 08:04, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)