Galileo Was Wrong, Okay?

Some good references on this silliness: Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Biblical Geocentrism
Geocentrism DebunkedI've had quite a few conversations with geocentrists, and not a one has been able to do any of the math. They are great at saying "according to relativity, X must be true"; but when someone else or I do that math it turns out that X is false. This has been especially true when discussing the role of relativity in GPS. Alas, most of it is gone with the Theology Web crash. But I remember most of it.Especially I remember Bob Bennet's alleged answer to the issue of "Ether Wind" in relation to the Foucalt pendulum and the fact that rockets launched towards the East get a speed boost. He said there were two ether winds; one electromagnetic blowing wets to east and one inertial blowing west-east. The inertial wind accounts for the rocket, the electromagnetic wind accounts for the pendulum by differences in the wind force between when the pendulum is at the north half of its swing and when it's at the south half of its swing (what happens when the pendulum is swinging in the east-west plane?). (Some geocentrists think that the electromagnet used to keep a Foucalt pendulum swinging is an integral part of the apparatus.) Obviously those are very select winds. It's hard to believe that someone with an earned PhD in physics could actually say something so stupid, but it was secondhand.Some especially interesting takedowns of geocentrists other than GPS are: Geocentrism: Flunking the Lagrange Point Challenge
Sungenis Followers Double DownI'd love to have a substantive discussion with someone, but it's pretty unlikely that's going to happen here.

None of your synopses contain any evidence. This is an evidence-based forum; whether or not you can post your synopses is up to others, but everyone is going to expect you to defend the claims you are making with evidence, and that means doing the math.If you are not going to defend your claims with calculations, you are wasting everyone's time.

PaulK:

quote:

---

There's a big problem with that argument. Only inertial reference frames are equivalent. You can't treat an accelerating reference frame in the same way.

---

"Accelerating reference frame" is a presupposition, and not a fact. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature

quote:

---

"Accelerating reference frame" is a presupposition, and not a fact.

---

So you reject Newtonian mechanics too ? You think that circular motion is possible without acceleration ?

I did address Newtonian mechanics in my synopses, but I am not allowed to post them here. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature

JonF:

quote:

---

None of your synopses contain any evidence.

---

Of course they do, but I was cut off at the knees before I could post the evidence. I have only been able to post introductory analysis thus far.My request for permission to post my own work product has been ignored. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature

You didn't answer the question. Do you reject Newtonian mechanics ? Do you maintain that the Earth can orbit the sun without accelerating ?

PaulK:

quote:

---

You think that circular motion is possible without acceleration ?

---

My research thus far indicates that the idea of circular orbits for the Sun and the Earth in the copernican model have been ruled out. Stellar aberration in stars close to the north pole appear from Earth to be making little circles, but that is all I am aware of. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature

PaulK:

quote:

---

Do you maintain that the Earth can orbit the sun without accelerating ?

---

I maintain that the Earth is not moving, and therefore not accelerating.I request permission to post my work product that deals with Newtonian mechanics. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature

quote:

---

My research thus far indicates that the idea of circular orbits for the Sun and the Earth in the copernican model have been ruled out.

---

Well you see that isn't the issue.The issue is whether relativity undermines itself by making a stationary Earth equivalent to an orbiting Earth, as you claimed. It does not. And the reason is that an orbiting Earth is accelerating, and therefore a frame of reference that takes the Earth as stationary cannot be equivalent because of that acceleration.

That is, scientists think that what scientists think is wrong, and so scientists think that scientists should think something other than what scientists think.This is even more bizarre than your delusions about cosmology.

I read you synopses.No evidence.Lots of unsupported claims.

Logical Fallacy - Appeal to Authority (or Non-Authority)Definition: Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant authority to add credibility to the claim being made.---------------------------------To expand on this further, I have a degree in Electrical Engineering as well. Graduated in 1996. That degree does not in any way make me an expert on any subject matter within the realm of cosmology any more than a cosmologist is an expert on circuit theory or electromagnetic theory.And being an 'amateur astronomer' basically stipulates within the confines of the definition that the individual is an amateur, NOT an expert.

Accelerating reference frames notnot a fact? Never spun a top or threw a Frisbee?Accelerating frames exist and can be detected by those in them in many ways.Let's get specific. Foucalt pendulum. Explained in your own words. Go!

There is such a thing as an expert witness.In court, the appeal to authority is a valid maneuver when backed up by real expertise.Of course this man is not setting himself up as an expert, though he is certainly affirming he has the competence to judge a science documentary about physics. The man is doing what every other author does: provide some biographical information to the public to orient them to his point of view.Yes there does exist the logical fallacy you cite, and yes it is perfectly appropriate to list one's credentials when publishing an article. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset signature