User talk:Truth seeker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia is not a place for nutty fringe theories. And why are you deleting the links? Evercat 20:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Still, if you really must write up this stuff, I suggest you make a new page for it, modern geocentrism or something like that. You should note the religious motivations for the theory, describe its relationship with creationism, etc.... Evercat 20:21, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've even started that page for you... Evercat 20:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition to the problem of parallax which I've noted on Talk:Heliocentrism, would you care to explain why God would set everything up so that it appeared from Earth that it's not in any way a fixed centre of the universe, but rather that the ordinary laws of motion and gravitation which physicists tell us about apply to Earth just like everything else? Is he deliberately trying to mislead us? It makes no sense... Evercat 11:47, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The ordinary laws of gravitation do apply to the earth as well as everything. The gravitational force of the unverse would have to cancel at the center (the earth) for this to work. Certainly God could arrange this. Truth_seeker.

You've not answered my question: why would God arrange everything so that it seemed as if geocentrism was false? Also:

  1. what's pulling the Sun around the Earth?
  2. you still haven't told me about parallax...

Evercat 20:36, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am working on it. But briefly, I do not agree that "it seems that geocentrism is wrong". Once you understand the theory (I will try and outline it), you will see that observationally it is equivalent, as well as dynamically. Once that is established, then form the viewpoint of the "average Joe", I think it the geocentric position "seems" more real (look at a star trails photo). I will post an explanation for parallax. As for what's pulling the sun around the earth, the rotating aether is (i.e., a Machian inertial frame). I will try and explain this also. Let me ask you a question: What caused the entire universe to concentrate into a point smaller than an electron then spontaneously explode to form the universe? Cosmology is a wide open question. Truth_seeker.

Well, I eagerly await the explanation of parallax. In the meantime, let me tell you that I've noted often that people who advocate pseudoscience tend to try to baffle their audience with complicated language. Can't you explain the physics in simple language, instead of using phrases like "Machian inertial frame"? There's not a single Google hit for that phrase. What the heck is it, and why do you need one?

You say that mainstream science "isolates the solar system from the rest of the universe" - can you at least explain how taking the rest of the universe into account is supposed to help a geocentrist? Currently you don't explain.

Another thing (just out of curiousity this time): is the Earth supposed to be spinning, or completely still? From what I read it seems to be the latter, with the entire universe revolving round it once every 24 hours, but I don't see why it has to be this way... Evercat 20:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

On a completely different and much more serious note, you appear to be using material straight from [1] - do you have copyright permission to do this? Evercat 20:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am in contact with Robert Sungenis, owner of the site. I am modifying the material somewhat, but a lot of it is very close to original. Parallax izs not difficult in itself, I just need to come up w/ some diagrams.

earth in this theory is still.

As for isolating the solar system, the heliocenrtic argument is that since everything else in the universe is so far away, and space is just a vacuum , we can ignore its participation in the gravitational interaction of the solar system objects. But we know that no system is truly isolted.

Machian inertial frame- there are a lot of internet references to it. Google is not the decider of things. I will try and find some links for you (I have come across it a few times today).

Truth Seeker.

Contents

[edit] Revert duel

This is silly. As I see it, you are not making a reasonable effort to come to a consensus. Maybe you think I am not being reasonable. What should we do about it? Should we call in outside help?

I am not willing to drop my point about dynamics, though we might be able to find another name for it. The more I think about it, the more I see it as the central scientific argument against geocentrism, so it is important that it be stated accurately. I see the fact that a geostatic frame and an inertial frame differ in their dynamics to be a simple consequence of definitions and a bit of mathematics, so I don't understand your resistance. Do you think we are using different definitions?

Art Carlson 22:19, 2004 Nov 12 (UTC)

Sorry- I did not see this message until 11/16.

I am willing to come to a concensus. I mentioned this in one of my responses on the article's discussion page.

Then please make a reasonable effort to do so. If I don't see you making an effort, I will request community comment. Art Carlson 18:45, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Why do you see this as a central point? You do not feel that the gravitational field of the universe can hold the universe together? Keep in mind the universe is not necassarily nearly as large as relativistic based estimates predict.

There are two main lines of reasoning that lead scientists to reject geocentrism. One is the simplicity argument or Occam's razor, which is nothing to scoff at, but it is not logically compulsory. (This might be compared to inductive arguments: If you've looked at a zillion ravens and all of them were black, you have very good reason to believe that all ravens are black, but it is still possible that the next raven you look at will be white.) This argument does (or at least could) restrict itself to kinematics, i.e., describing the way things move without worrying about why they move that way. Parallax and aberration also belong to this line of reasoning, although they are particularly convincing.
The other line of reasoning looks at the nature of the laws of physics and observes that there is one (rotational) frame with special properties: no centriugal force, no Coriolis force, and conservation of momentum. Operationally you can achieve this frame of reference by setting up a Cartesian coordinate system at some point in time, pointing a gyroscope along each axis, and insisting that your axes stay aligned with the gyroscopes for all future times. In this frame of reference, defined solely by the laws of physics without any reference to a particular configuration of matter, the Earth rotates. Historically, scientists found the simplicity argument compelling enough to accept heliocentrism, but they were happier when the laws of physics could be shown to agree with that choice. The first unambiguous evidence of this was the Foucault pendulum.
The logical necessity of the second line of argument arises because it can be observed that the laws of physics have one frame of reference (with respect to rotation) that is different from all the others. Even if it could be shown, e.g. by new physics experiments, that the frame of rotation of the Earth has special properties, then that frame would be the second special one. The frame defined by the gyroscopes will still be special. Art Carlson 18:45, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

State how you would like to state your dynamical point ansd I will accept or propose an alternate.

I have stated my dynamical point in several places in several ways. Pick one. Art Carlson 18:45, 2004 Nov 16 (UTC)

Truth_Seeker


[edit] Modern Geocentrism

Art and Gene have been doing some work on the article and it seems to me that it has improved considerably - the explanations are good, concise and to the point, but I would appreciate your view on it. I'm no expert on modern geocentrism so I'm not in a position to verify their work.

It would be nice to get to a point where we feel we can remove the NPOV warning from the article though as I can't think of many things more ugly at the top.

Please cast your eye over it and make comments on the talk page --KayEss 16:41, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will look it over. I think we can work with it. Tere are some points I would like to challenge, but I will try and do it in a concise and fair amnner. Truth_Seeker 04:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank-you. As an aside, it's normally best to reply on the other person's talk page as they will be notified. I nearly missed your reply. --KayEss 04:18, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's cool. Shall we discuss them on the talk page? As you can see both Art and Gene are making a serious effort to try to present the modern geocentric view properly - we can probably all help each other to get the missing information into the piece.

How do you feel about the NPOV warning now? --KayEss 05:30, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't let me distract you from the edits you feel necessary to converge on a consensus, but I've started wondering about another question (which could eventually end up in the article, or not, but there's no hurry): Why should it be that the aether drags everything with it, including the Moon and the bob of a Foucault pendulem, but not the Earth itself? Is this, in your view, in the realm of physics, or does it require God to keep a finger on the Earth so it doesn't spin up? If the Earth is made of material that follows different rules, then shouldn't the Moon rocks in Houston roll over to one side of their glass case? Art Carlson 10:59, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC) (P.S. As far as I'm concerned, we can remove the NPOV warning and the RFC - assuming you aren't planning any drastic changes.)

It is in the realm of physics. I am not sure how to express it properly, but will get an answer. The analogy is the rotating bucket with ball at center. The ball stays still. Also much like and axle. These analogies are very simplistic, so let me get a better answer.205.180.135.66 23:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A ball placed in the middle of a swirling bucket of water will of course start spinning! If an axle is not attached to a wagon, it will start turning, too. Art Carlson 09:11, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Not swirling, but the bucket is turnned (basically slowly, no swirling). I envisioned a fixed axle, like on a wagon wheel. Still these analogies are overly simple.205.180.135.66 20:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I did the following experiment tonight(while washing dishes):
Apparatus: SS lid to pan (~10" diameter), filled with water.
Plastic cap for drain (~3.5" diameter)
I put the cap in the center of the lid fiulled with water. The cap floated. I turned the lid. The cap remained motionless.
Inertia?

Truth_Seeker 06:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Your last set of edits are going to get reverted as they're not in the correct style. The quotation doesn't belong in the encyclopia I'm afraid. You need to use the talk page to expound your position and then it can be written up properly. As you've seen Art and Gene are doing their best to try to put your position properly in the right style for the encyclopia. Remember that the entries are written from a neutral point-of-view. This means that words like 'our' don't belong in them - they are written as if from a third party looking on the debate from a distance, not from the point-of-view of the participants. --KayEss 06:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does not a geocentric position assume that scientists are missing the blatantly obvious and are lying to us? What motivation could hundreds of thousands of scientists, from all over the world, with religious stances like christian, jewish, deist, atheist, etc? This also does not include amateur scientists and others who study the findings of scientists and see no problem with them, or see any deception on scientists part. Scientists are also rewarded for proving that the current theories are incorrect, or lacking in some way. It would seem easier to assume that you (and modern geocentrists) are probably incorrect. Very good arguments are needed to overcome my skepticism, and at this point I think its fair to label modern geocentrism as a crazy fringe conspiracy theory. --Havermayer 21:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV issues

Please see NPOV and Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial, in particular, DO NOT remove NPOV tags from pages unless there is concensus that the article is NPOV, for that will be considered vandalism. Dunc|☺ 16:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I protected the page to stop you pushing your rather ridiculous POV. I could have just protected against vandalism, but I was being kind. To reiterate then, we have the NPOV policy. NPOV is not a "compromise" between an utterly bizarre view and something neutral. You cannot state opinions as facts, however much religious fervour you have for them. Dunc|☺ 12:34, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Justification article

Hi,

I noticed that you appeared in the edit history of the justification (theology) article. I recently made major changes to the article in an effort to move it to NPOV. If you have any suggestions for improvement (style, content, whatever), please leave a comment on the talk page for that article. The goal is to get the article to the point that the POV and cleanup templates can be removed.

Thanks, --jrcagle 20:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Done refactoring for now

Done refactoring for now. Please comment on my refactoring in the space below. If we agree on the work so far, we can start distilling the argument to its salient points, and then move to an RFC -- where other, more experienced editors will comment on the issued. Otheus 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)