The Geocentrism Challenge

[vbloke]

$1000 to prove the earth revolves around the sun?

This sounds like another Zammit style challenge, where logic, reason and truth are treated as little more than "well, the bible says otherwise, so you're wrong".

I'm no mathematician, astonomer or astropysicist, but surely there must be a 100% cast-iron arguemtn backed up with irrefutable evidence to blow this fallacy out of the water.

I admire Randis' stance on staking the $1m against the $1k, but to really damage the CAI, this needs a media blitz, with some very well respected scientists behind it.

[Trifikas]

My best guess as to the direction to go here would be The mars Rovers - the mathmatics were heliocentric-based, because if they weren't they'd have missed Mars. and we have the pics comming back from them.

My other guess is they'd just cry "Fake" however.


Trifikas

[John Jackson]

Just did a quick search and found this: http://catholicoutlook.com/original.php

From the challenge website (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm) : "By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive."

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.

Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation? :D

[vbloke]

Originally posted by John Jackson
Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation? :D

I'd say about the same as me proving the invisible pink unicorn really does live in my washing machine.

seriously, there isn't an arguement that could be put forward that couldn't be countered with "it's god's will". What this needs is a serious debunking in the press - newspapers, TV, radio, etc with as many scientists behind it as possible. Make them a laughing stock.

maybe the bad astronomer himself, Phil Plait, would like to get involved.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by John Jackson
Just did a quick search and found this: http://catholicoutlook.com/original.php

From the challenge website (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/geochallenge.htm) : "By "proof" we mean that your explanations must be direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive."

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.

Now, what are the odds of them accepting a scientific explanation? :D

I think that is their contention--the measurements are all wrong.
And by observable--anything that happened in the past must have been observed (Probably by you only-no proxies such as Astronomers, scientists, etc--you had to be there...)

[Hastur]

Originally posted by John Jackson

Don't we measure the distance to nearby stars using parallax?

This would not be possible if Earth remained stationary.


Medieval/CAI astronomer: It is the stars that are moving, not the Earth.


This challenge has all the credibility of Hovind's $250k evolution challenge.

[Ririon]

If they are catholics, it's easy to prove heliocentrism to them. Just get the pope to declare it to be so when he's not busy blessing Ferraris.

Ririon

[I'll_buy_that]

If they are catholics, it's easy to prove heliocentrism to them. Just get the pope to declare it to be so when he's not busy blessing Ferraris.


I have to respond to this as someone who was raised catholic, but never was one

Catholics have no problem with the sun being the center of the universe, they do not believe the earth is 6,000 years old, they do not believe the earth is flat, and they do not refute Newton's laws. There are a lot of very educated people in the catholic church and there are many catholic run universities, elementary and high schools that teach science separate from theology.

Just because there are Catholic nut jobs like Mel Gibson, does not make the whole religion nutty.

[lumos]

This challenge is easy for anybody with a background in mathematics and science to prove, irrefutably.

The math behind it is proof and you can't argue with it. Kepler and Newton took care of that. This is backed up by physical observation, in one instance, by the US space program. You can actually see the spacecraft in orbit, reliably, and predictably.

Heck if the Sun orbited the Earth, the Earth would orbit the International Space Station, which would be orbiting the space dust that would be orbiting the photons, etc.

If I actually believed they would award the money and/or I had enough time to spare, I would actually put together the proof and then sue them for not awarding the money.

[Ririon]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that
Just because there are Catholic nut jobs like Mel Gibson, does not make the whole religion nutty.

Exactly. These geocentrist guys clearly belong in the "nut job" cathegory. Regarding your sig, I know a few right wing Christians, and they are perfectly reasonable people, too. Until you start talking about anything that has a 100 % bulletproof answer in the Bible, of course...

Ririon

[sphenisc]

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm

As described by William James, the concept of 'revolving' is observer dependent. From the perspective of an adjacent observer (standing nearby and remaining stationary with regard to a line drawn between the centre of the tree and and arbritrary mark on its bark), the human 'revolves' round the squirrel. From the squirrel's perspective the human doesn't. If the human in going round the tree remaing fixedly staring due west, then from the human's perspective, the squirrel revolves round the human.

Likewise with regards to the Earth-Sun system, from the viewpoint of an observer on Earth, the Sun revolves round the Earth; from the Sun, the Earth revolves round the Sun and viewed from the 'fixed stars', the Earth and Sun revolve round their common centre of gravity (which lies beneath the gaseous surface of the sun, so even from this perspective, the Earth can be said to revolve around the Sun (at least to a first approximation) .

In an Einsteinian Universe there are no 'privileged' observers whose perspective takes preference over others. Just as no one person's clock is 'right' or 'wrong' under Special Relativity, so no one person's description of 'revolving' can take precedence. Therefore both statements
"The Earth revolves round the Sun" and
"The Sun revolves round the Earth" are true for suitably specified observers, and I therefore claim BOTH prizes.

Please note that the heliocentric system is preferred primarily because it makes calculations easier, i.e it produces Keplerian equations in their simplest form, rather than having to translate back and forward between reference frames.

Cheers :-))

[Hastur]

Originally posted by sphenisc
Please note that the heliocentric system is preferred primarily because it makes calculations easier, i.e it produces Keplerian equations in their simplest form, rather than having to translate back and forward between reference frames.

Cheers :-))

And the kicker:

Since heliocentrism is the simplest model, according to a particularly influential theologian, it is the most likely to be correct. Not to mention it is hard to reconcile why an entity so many times larger than the Earth would not be the dominant gravity well and thus have everything in its influence revolve around it.

[Charlie in Dayton]

This is a variant of what I"m going to post on The Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (someone beat me to it and started a thread here...).

I am sorely tempted to take 'em on.

What sort of challenges would I mount? Let's see...
The proofs must be "...direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive...".
Okay, 'direct, observable, physical, natural' we can pretty much figure out. 'Repeatable'...do the observations come up with the same results every time? Okay, got that one. 'Unambiguous'...from www.dictionary.com, "Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear."...sounds like they want their answer in definite terms. "Comprehensive"...again from www.dictionary.com, "1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution. 2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.". Now, this may be the wiggler here...comprehensive = all inclusive? "Two apples plus two oranges = four pieces of fruit. Yeah, but how about two plums and two tomatoes? You didn't include those in your calculations." I'll have to ask them to define a couple of terms.

Here's a question I need to ask them. They question whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. I need to know whether or not they believe that the Earth rotates at all, or does it sit there stationary, not moving. Doesn't necessarily change the conclusions, just changes the path to get to the conclusions...

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then everything else that apparently moves through the sky does the same...the Moon...the planets...and every object in the Universe that is observable by any method we have at hand. So that means we're back to a geocentric Universe, which means we can trot out every proof that every scientist/astronomer from Galileo to the present day have presented. In opposition, the CAI has the viewpoint expressed in the Bible.

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then analysis of the Sun's 'orbit' indicates that not only does it go around the Earth, it also varies in its orbital inclination to Earth's equator. If it didn't, there would be no indicator of seasons (the equinoxes and solstices). This would mean that the Sun's orbital path is not described by a circle, but by a cylinder!

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, but nothing else does, then what's the center of orbit for the Moon? What's the center of orbit for the planets?

If the planets orbit the Earth, instead of the Sun, doesn't that mean that the planetary orbits would have to be much more elliptical than they are because their distance from the Sun would vary much more? Wouldn't their orbital speed show wild fluctuations between the inbound and outbound orbital speeds because of these elliptical orbits?

If the planets don't orbit just the Earth, but instead orbit the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth, wouldn't the planetary orbits be a geometric figure the likes of which you'd see designed on an old Spirograph (Java applets available here to draw your own (http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~dlittle/java/SpiroGraph/), and also to just see the results (http://www.wordsmith.org/anu/java/spirograph.html)). In these wildly and decidedly not-even-vaguely-circular orbits, the distances from the individual planets to the Earth would vary much more dramatically than they do now, and there would be many more observable instances of retrograde motion. (The orbital mechanics necessary to calculate all this are way way way beyond me, but my imagination tempered with a little knowledge leads me to believe the statements of orbital condition. If I'm in error, I invite the reader to show me where I've gone wrong.)

If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, and if the Earth is the center of those orbits, then there wouldn't be the ability to calculate interstellar distances through geometry and trigonometry through the effects of parallax. If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, but the Earth is NOT the center of those orbits, then (A) what is, and (B) wouldn't parallax measurements indicate varying distances to the Earth (at least on those that are measurable due to the limits of instrumentation). If the non-Solar System objects DON'T orbit the Earth, then the same stars would be in the skies nightly year round. For the non-Solar System objects to display the behavior we currently observe if this was a geocentric Universe, then the objects' orbits would have to be the same as the Sun's, that is, one resembling a cylinder! Considering the distances involved, and the speeds necessary, wouldn't the red/blue shifts of various objects be grossly different at different times? (I may be off base on this one...again, corrections are welcomed.) And wouldn't the interactions between galaxies as they sail through interstellar space be happening on a regular basis, as well as being readily observable?

So, I'm tempted to ask them the questions posed above, about the Earth's rotation, and what constitutes 'comprehensive', and also to ask the question about who's going to be judging this competition? Someone or someones mutually acceptable, which takes away the home field advantage from them?

Of course, I'd need some assistance with the math involved in certain aspects, maybe some artwork assistance (I get the feeling these fine folk would benefit from looking at some pictures as opposed to written explanations), probably some editorial laying-on-of-hands (ahem), and proofreadin's out the hoohaw.

So tell me...whaddaya think? Are they worth taking a crack at? And am I anywhere near being on the right track to derail them?

[Zep]

It's all good, Charlie, but they would STILL quote the Bible as the ultimate refutation, and hold onto the dough.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
This is a variant of what I"m going to post on The Bad Astronomy Bulletin Board (someone beat me to it and started a thread here...).

I am sorely tempted to take 'em on.

What sort of challenges would I mount? Let's see...
The proofs must be "...direct, observable, physical, natural, repeatable, unambiguous and comprehensive...".
Okay, 'direct, observable, physical, natural' we can pretty much figure out. 'Repeatable'...do the observations come up with the same results every time? Okay, got that one. 'Unambiguous'...from www.dictionary.com, "Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear."...sounds like they want their answer in definite terms. "Comprehensive"...again from www.dictionary.com, "1. So large in scope or content as to include much: a comprehensive history of the revolution. 2. Marked by or showing extensive understanding: comprehensive knowledge.". Now, this may be the wiggler here...comprehensive = all inclusive? "Two apples plus two oranges = four pieces of fruit. Yeah, but how about two plums and two tomatoes? You didn't include those in your calculations." I'll have to ask them to define a couple of terms.

Here's a question I need to ask them. They question whether the Earth revolves around the Sun. I need to know whether or not they believe that the Earth rotates at all, or does it sit there stationary, not moving. Doesn't necessarily change the conclusions, just changes the path to get to the conclusions...

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then everything else that apparently moves through the sky does the same...the Moon...the planets...and every object in the Universe that is observable by any method we have at hand. So that means we're back to a geocentric Universe, which means we can trot out every proof that every scientist/astronomer from Galileo to the present day have presented. In opposition, the CAI has the viewpoint expressed in the Bible.

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, then analysis of the Sun's 'orbit' indicates that not only does it go around the Earth, it also varies in its orbital inclination to Earth's equator. If it didn't, there would be no indicator of seasons (the equinoxes and solstices). This would mean that the Sun's orbital path is not described by a circle, but by a cylinder!

If the Sun rotates around the Earth, but nothing else does, then what's the center of orbit for the Moon? What's the center of orbit for the planets?

If the planets orbit the Earth, instead of the Sun, doesn't that mean that the planetary orbits would have to be much more elliptical than they are because their distance from the Sun would vary much more? Wouldn't their orbital speed show wild fluctuations between the inbound and outbound orbital speeds because of these elliptical orbits?

If the planets don't orbit just the Earth, but instead orbit the Sun as the Sun orbits the Earth, wouldn't the planetary orbits be a geometric figure the likes of which you'd see designed on an old Spirograph (Java applets available here to draw your own (http://www.math.dartmouth.edu/~dlittle/java/SpiroGraph/), and also to just see the results (http://www.wordsmith.org/anu/java/spirograph.html)). In these wildly and decidedly not-even-vaguely-circular orbits, the distances from the individual planets to the Earth would vary much more dramatically than they do now, and there would be many more observable instances of retrograde motion. (The orbital mechanics necessary to calculate all this are way way way beyond me, but my imagination tempered with a little knowledge leads me to believe the statements of orbital condition. If I'm in error, I invite the reader to show me where I've gone wrong.)

If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, and if the Earth is the center of those orbits, then there wouldn't be the ability to calculate interstellar distances through geometry and trigonometry through the effects of parallax. If the non-Solar System objects orbit the Earth, but the Earth is NOT the center of those orbits, then (A) what is, and (B) wouldn't parallax measurements indicate varying distances to the Earth (at least on those that are measurable due to the limits of instrumentation). If the non-Solar System objects DON'T orbit the Earth, then the same stars would be in the skies nightly year round. For the non-Solar System objects to display the behavior we currently observe if this was a geocentric Universe, then the objects' orbits would have to be the same as the Sun's, that is, one resembling a cylinder! Considering the distances involved, and the speeds necessary, wouldn't the red/blue shifts of various objects be grossly different at different times? (I may be off base on this one...again, corrections are welcomed.) And wouldn't the interactions between galaxies as they sail through interstellar space be happening on a regular basis, as well as being readily observable?

So, I'm tempted to ask them the questions posed above, about the Earth's rotation, and what constitutes 'comprehensive', and also to ask the question about who's going to be judging this competition? Someone or someones mutually acceptable, which takes away the home field advantage from them?

Of course, I'd need some assistance with the math involved in certain aspects, maybe some artwork assistance (I get the feeling these fine folk would benefit from looking at some pictures as opposed to written explanations), probably some editorial laying-on-of-hands (ahem), and proofreadin's out the hoohaw.

So tell me...whaddaya think? Are they worth taking a crack at? And am I anywhere near being on the right track to derail them?

But Charlie.....God moves everything around the earth in a vastly complex and arbitrary fashion such that observation from earth is consistant with a solar centred system. God does this to test our faith and you can whistle for your thousand bucks...
NEXT!

[Charlie in Dayton]

Not to put too fine a point on it...maybe the key is to ask 'em the age old question "What would it take to convince you of..." and go for it from there.

Of course, what it takes has to relate to the question. "Proof of the nonexistence of God" doesn't cut the mustard here.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Not to put too fine a point on it...maybe the key is to ask 'em the age old question "What would it take to convince you of..." and go for it from there.

Of course, what it takes has to relate to the question. "Proof of the nonexistence of God" doesn't cut the mustard here.
Good question. Go ask them - what's the harm?

[to.by]

I think the example with parallax should do the thing, at least if they were willing to listen to a rational argument. Another thing is that acceleration is not depending on the frame of reference, and it should, in principle, be possible to meashure the earth's accelaration in its orbit around the sun.

[sphenisc]

Originally posted by Hastur


Since heliocentrism is the simplest model, according to a particularly influential theologian, it is the most likely to be correct.

Since geocentrism is in the Bible, according to other particularly influential theologians, it is the most likely to be correct. :-))

[BillyJoe]

The following is s direct quote from the CAI site:

The Geocentrism Challenge

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.
The first thing to notice is that the challenge is a misnomer. They call it "The Geocentrism Challenge" but, in fact, they don't ask you to prove the Earth is not the centre of the universe, they ask you to "prove that the earth revolves around the sun".

Strictly, the earth does not revolve around the sun (Neither does the Earth revolve around the Sun ;) ). As pointed out by sphenisc, the Earth revolves around the common centre of gravity between the Earth and the Sun. Therefore, strictly, no one will be able to claim the $1000.

BillyJoe

[BillyJoe]

Okay, I've gotten around to reading the whole challenge. They clearly do mean us to prove Heliocentrism, which they believe is impossible to do.

BJ

[Hastur]

Originally posted by sphenisc
Since geocentrism is in the Bible, according to other particularly influential theologians, it is the most likely to be correct. :-))

Appeal to authority. Try again.

[Solitaire]

I wonder, if we attached rockets to the Earth,
would the rotation of the universe around the Earth change?
:confused:

[Hastur]

I don't know about the universe at large, but the solar system would definitely be thrown for a loop.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
The following is s direct quote from the CAI site:

The Geocentrism Challenge

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that the earth revolves around the sun. (If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI). Obviously, we at CAI don't think anyone CAN prove it, and thus we can offer such a generous reward. In fact, we may up the ante in the near future.


So the check will be made payable to Galileo, or Copernicus?

Either way, why bother to make this challenge the way they did? It's a focused enough of a conclusion that they should just prove the earth revolves around the sun and stop with the grandstanding...

...oh wait, they can't.

[LostAngeles]

I've been toying with this off and on.

You figure we have three possibilites:

The sun revolves around the earth. (or the center of gravity)

The earth revolves around the sun. (or the center of gravity)

The two bodies are both orbiting some other, unknown body. We'll call it God, just for the heck of it. One has an inner orbit, the other has an outer orbit. (Because this possibility amuses me in a Sci-Fi way and it should round out all possible set ups, right?)

Now, I haven't actually taken the time to really toy with this (damn WoW keeping me from $1000), but wouldn't movements of Mercury and Venus drop all but the middle two? How are they explained in a geocentric model? Sun revolves with the other planets around the Earth/God?

[Ducky]

Originally posted by LostAngeles
I've been toying with this off and on.

You figure we have three possibilites:

The sun revolves around the earth. (or the center of gravity)

The earth revolves around the sun. (or the center of gravity)

The two bodies are both orbiting some other, unknown body. We'll call it God, just for the heck of it. One has an inner orbit, the other has an outer orbit. (Because this possibility amuses me in a Sci-Fi way and it should round out all possible set ups, right?)

Now, I haven't actually taken the time to really toy with this (damn WoW keeping me from $1000), but wouldn't movements of Mercury and Venus drop all but the middle two? How are they explained in a geocentric model? Sun revolves with the other planets around the Earth/God?

That observation is exactly the argument galileo used.

I noticed their catholics. And the rules say no appeals to authority can be used. Surely the vatican observatory is an exception to their rule? They wouldn't take it on authority from their own church?

[LostAngeles]

Originally posted by fowlsound
That observation is exactly the argument galileo used.

I noticed their catholics. And the rules say no appeals to authority can be used. Surely the vatican observatory is an exception to their rule? They wouldn't take it on authority from their own church?

That's what I thought. Sorta. It seemed the most obvious and simple way that someone must have done it.

[Trebuchet]

Anyone notice the challenge page is dated 2002? If he was going to award anything it would have happened by now.

This guy is clearly no more representative of the Catholic church than I am. Which is not at all.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by Trebuchet
Anyone notice the challenge page is dated 2002? If he was going to award anything it would have happened by now.

This guy is clearly no more representative of the Catholic church than I am. Which is not at all.

I agree with you, but the logical fallacy still persists in his arguments.

He's saying you cannot cite from authority to win. (edited to add the following statement) Yet he is citing the authority of the bible as his proof.

He also says that he is a Catholic. You don't have to be a Catholic priest to have an edict from Rome impact your beliefs. All Catholics follow the pope and what he says, right?

So what he's saying is that he is committing herecy, which if we were in the past would be a matter for the inquisition, but nowadays means he can be excommunicated.

[Ducky]

Originally posted by vbloke
I'd say about the same as me proving the invisible pink unicorn really does live in my washing machine.

seriously, there isn't an arguement that could be put forward that couldn't be countered with "it's god's will". What this needs is a serious debunking in the press - newspapers, TV, radio, etc with as many scientists behind it as possible. Make them a laughing stock.

maybe the bad astronomer himself, Phil Plait, would like to get involved.

Logical fallacy, how do you know it's pink?:D

I agree with the full court press in the press...

[sphenisc]

Originally posted by Hastur
Appeal to authority. Try again.

That was the point I was making about your comment; only mine was pithy, ironic and quite witty. [ I couldn't find an irony smiley - will this do ;) ]

[Solitaire]

Hey! Charlie, once you've nocked off that one you can do this one too.... :p
Evolution Challenge (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/evochallenge.htm)

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.

The specific question on the table in regard to the $1,000 Challenge is this: It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!

Same terms and conditions which you, not they, follow. :D

Back on topic. Check out these cool graphs.
Hutton Gibson's First Try (http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/science/gibbson.htm)

[Hastur]

Originally posted by sphenisc
That was the point I was making about your comment; only mine was pithy, ironic and quite witty. [ I couldn't find an irony smiley - will this do ;) ]

Except my comment was not an appeal to authority. I never said ol' Willy was necessarily correct. I also mentioned that geocentrism has a problem with the Sun not being the center of the solar system despite being the most massive body in the system, and thus has the greatest gravitational influence.

[arthwollipot]

The mathematics can be done in either a geocentric or a heliocentric context. The heliocentric maths are far more complicated though, because then you've got to take into account epicycles and all that complex movement. The Ptolmaic structure was pretty detailed. One of the strengths of the Copernican system (especially when modified by Kepler's elliptical orbits) was that it was simpler.

But since you can still calculate the orbits by using a geocentric perspective, the challenge will never be won.

How many different reasons can we think of for this challenge to never be one?

[Zep]

Just one: God dunnit, so you're wrong.

Incidentally, I note two errors in their response to Gibson's entry.

First, that the radio transmissions from directly receding space probes would appear to be NOT coming from where they actually are located in the sky. This is because electromagnetic waves travels at a specific known speed, they are NOT affected by any "aether", and the probes would move sideways rapidly from where they initiated transmission. Further, radio transmissions from Earth TO these probes would need to allow for a considerable "lead" in order to hit them. (Actually, it would be more like trying to shoot at a target on the edge of a fast merry-go-round while you stand in the centre.) That neither case happens or is necessary shows that either "space" does not rotate about the Earth, or that the Earth rotates at the same rate as "space" (a condition denied by the geocentric theory).

Second, the "aether" is a totally imaginary substance that the Michelson-Morley experiment disproved, and is quite contrary to their assertions that Michelson DID prove it exists. Michelson and Morley spent considerable time and effort in an attempt to measure "the aether" accurately - that they failed to produce any results confirmed the null hypothesis, namely that it does not exist.


There are a whole lot more invalid assumptions, arguments from incredulity, and just plain old innaccuracies, and yet they feel they are right. The best question to them would probably be: What would you accept by way of proof that you are wrong? Clearly, for these people, the answer is "nothing". Hence it's pointless.

[sphenisc]

Originally posted by Hastur
Except my comment was not an appeal to authority. I never said ol' Willy was necessarily correct. I also mentioned that geocentrism has a problem with the Sun not being the center of the solar system despite being the most massive body in the system, and thus has the greatest gravitational influence.

I really don't see how you can claim that my comment was an appeal to authority but yours isn't. My comment was structured identically to your own, with a substitution of nouns; either we are both appealling to authority or neither of us are.
Secondly, an appeal to authority does not require an explicit statement of that authority's correctness. It is sufficient to refer to said authority in a 'positive' manner, without further analysis of their arguments - that is what we both do.

Geocentrism may or may not have a problem with the Sun not being the centre of the solar system, but that's not what it is in question here. This is a two body problem discussing the revolution of Earth and Sun. The fact that the rest of the solar system is/is not 'centred' on the Sun is as irrelevant as the fact that the Terran system [Earth+moon+artificial satellites] is centred on the Earth.

Mass is only relevant if that is your criterion for determining 'centre', it is just as easy to claim that Mars is the centre because it's the reddest or Pluto because it's the coldest ; or Earth is because there are or have been ~100,000,000,000 observers capable of watching the Sun in its motion round the Earth and saying so, whereas there are precisely none who have stood on the Sun and watched the Earth revolve around it.

Cheers

[Hastur]

Originally posted by sphenisc
I really don't see how you can claim that my comment was an appeal to authority but yours isn't. My comment was structured identically to your own, with a substitution of nouns; either we are both appealling to authority or neither of us are.
Secondly, an appeal to authority does not require an explicit statement of that authority's correctness. It is sufficient to refer to said authority in a 'positive' manner, without further analysis of their arguments - that is what we both do.

My only qualm with that definition is that while it includes the "I'm right because Mr. Authority says so" that is an appeal to authority, it also catches the "I'm right because [insert reason here]; Mr. Authority agrees with me in [insert source here]" that is not an appeal to authority. Also, my point was more that it was a theologian who posited the principle of parsimony rather than some scientist. An attack on CAI's credibility than on whether geocentrism or heliocentrism is correct.

Mass is only relevant if that is your criterion for determining 'centre', it is just as easy to claim that Mars is the centre because it's the reddest or Pluto because it's the coldest ; or Earth is because there are or have been ~100,000,000,000 observers capable of watching the Sun in its motion round the Earth and saying so, whereas there are precisely none who have stood on the Sun and watched the Earth revolve around it.

Cheers

Except that mass is the one criterion so far mentioned that actually has consequences. Under Einstein's theory of gravity, the more massive an object is, the more it distorts space-time around it, drawing in nearby objects of less mass and distortion. Because the Sun is a more massive object, it should be distorting space-time in such a way that the planets (including the Earth) should be orbiting it. We see in this in other solar systems, therefore how can we presume that our solar system is in any way different. It's going to take more than a few statements in a book with so many holes, I can push George Wendt through it sideways with plenty of room to spare, to counter that.

And before more people get their shorts in a twist, I understand that both heliocentrism and geocentrism have viable mathematical proofs, but math proofs, being artificial representations, always yield to credible observations.

[Soapy Sam]

Fowlsound-

You have failed to grasp the essence of invisible pink unicorns.

They are pink by definition.


Otherwise they would just be invisible unicorns.

Not the same thing at all, don't you see?

It's just like semi invisible grinning Cheshire cats;- if they were not Cheshire cats, the whole thing would be ridiculous.


I'm sure you are grateful for that clarification.

:D

ETA- If anyone thinks this is off the topic of the thread- I disagree most profoundly.

[Timothy]

Quotes from James Randi's commentary (emphases mine)

"Well, friends, my offer last week to pay the JREF million to anyone who could prove that the Sun rotates about the Earth, got the expected storm of responses. All but a few properly pointed out that it's a matter of relativity — not Albert's variety, though similar — and that's of course right."

"It's very true that one can look upon the Earth as the reference position, in which case the Sun would be traveling around the Earth."

"When you walk across the beach, you will probably perceive that as your body moving across the surface of the Earth, which — relative to you — is standing still. But if you wished, you could also choose to decide that your legs are turning the planet Earth beneath your body — and that's just as correct as the more sober view. It's relative, you see."

Yes, I do see. So, who was the first and who gets the million?

[roger]

Originally posted by Timothy
Quotes from James Randi's commentary (emphases mine)

"Well, friends, my offer last week to pay the JREF million to anyone who could prove that the Sun rotates about the Earth, got the expected storm of responses. All but a few properly pointed out that it's a matter of relativity — not Albert's variety, though similar — and that's of course right."

"It's very true that one can look upon the Earth as the reference position, in which case the Sun would be traveling around the Earth."

"When you walk across the beach, you will probably perceive that as your body moving across the surface of the Earth, which — relative to you — is standing still. But if you wished, you could also choose to decide that your legs are turning the planet Earth beneath your body — and that's just as correct as the more sober view. It's relative, you see."

Yes, I do see. So, who was the first and who gets the million? Except Randi is wrong. Those two views are not equivalent. Standing still, than walking across the beach entails acceleration. Acceleration is not relative. It is trivial to prove that it is you that are moving, and not the earth rotating under your feet.

[Timothy]

James Randi writes:

"JREF will write a check for $1,000,000 to the first person who can prove that the Sun revolves around the Earth."

"You can submit your "proofs" to our e-mail address jref@randi.org. We will then offer a response. Both your "proof" and our response will be posted on the JREF website."

"JREF will never be the judge of whether you have successfully proven your case and JREF will not depend on "its reputation of honesty and truthfulness" in acting as a judge of whether or not you have successfully proven your case; tests, as always, will be independently designed and conducted by neutral agencies. If you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money."

I feel that the flippant oneupmanship of the offer, proclaimed with authoritative bravado, was a poor move. One can in fact prove the stated challenge that "the Earth revolves around the Sun" because the challenge was presented with no constraints on assumptions and reference frames. It *precisely* comes down to judging whether you have proved your case, contradicting the above statement. James Randi has conceded as much in his latest commentary ... that it's a matter of semantics, not of orbital mechanics.

And now Mr. Randi's latest commentary has him brushing off and explaining away his hastily conceived challenge. I assume that Mr. Randi's intent was to sarcastically rebuff in public forum with authoritative certainty the one or two feeble-minded who dared to take this challenge ... instead he is deluged with intelligent commentary that he is in fact wrong. (I for one would like to see the proofs and rebuttals, but I fear we never will.) Which is a shame, since it supplies ammunition to those who claim the Paranormal Challenge will always be treated similarly. The value that the Paranormal Challenge has is in its absolutely rigorous integrity. This side-challenge cheapened that.

I'm saddened to see that in an effort to target a loonie (who rightfully deserved it) Mr. Randi has shot himself in the foot.

[Hastur]

I just read the commentary and saw "Dr." Sanguines's response. He's one of the worst sort of debaters, a guerilla (aka Socratic) debater.

[wdsmith]

Originally posted by roger
Except Randi is wrong. Those two views are not equivalent. Standing still, than walking across the beach entails acceleration. Acceleration is not relative. It is trivial to prove that it is you that are moving, and not the earth rotating under your feet.

Randi's argument is based on kinematics, and from that standpoint he is perfectly correct. Kinematics equations describe the motion of an object with respect to a particular reference point; they do not describe the forces acting on the object. One can construct kinematic equations which accurately describe the motions of the planets with respect to any reference point, be it the sun, the earth, or any arbitrary point in space. Randi also asserts that with multiple reference points to choose from, the "parsimonious view" (i.e. Occam's razor) defines the correct reference point.

One of the foundations of Dr. Sungenis' arguments (the small portion I've seen, at least) seems to be this flexibility in choosing the reference point, coupled with a refusal to accept the "parsimonious view." This is not a totally unreasonable viewpoint; the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. (However, when choosing among equally correct explanations, the simplest one is preferred.)

The nature of the debate changes a bit when it shifts to the realm of dynamics, which relates the motion of an object to the forces acting on it and to the properties of the object. For instance, the earth weighs about 5.97x10^24 kg, while the sun weighs about 2.0x10^30 kg, or roughly 300,000 times the earth. Since the sun and the earth exert equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, the earth's acceleration will be about 300,000 times the sun's.

Sadly, this argument is unlikely to sway Dr. Sungenis. He will counter with a universe constructed so that the forces of other stars on the sun cause the sun to move in such a way that the earth is stationary. If one goes through the tedium of refuting that, no doubt he will proffer some even more complex (and harder to disprove) argument. In this respect, he reminds me of my brother, another exceptionally tenacious debater. There are only two possible outcomes to the debate: He wins, or you give up (which is the same thing to him). I would not waste my time on such a fruitless endeavor.

[BillyJoe]

wdsmith,

Thanks for your insight into Sungenis' modus operandi.
I read his responses to one particular challenger and didn't see that.

BJ.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by wdsmith
Randi's argument is based on kinematics, and from that standpoint he is perfectly correct. Kinematics equations describe the motion of an object with respect to a particular reference point; they do not describe the forces acting on the object. One can construct kinematic equations which accurately describe the motions of the planets with respect to any reference point, be it the sun, the earth, or any arbitrary point in space. Randi also asserts that with multiple reference points to choose from, the "parsimonious view" (i.e. Occam's razor) defines the correct reference point.
Snip.....
For instance, the earth weighs about 5.97x10^24 kg, while the sun weighs about 2.0x10^30 kg, or roughly 300,000 times the earth. Since the sun and the earth exert equal and opposite gravitational forces on each other, the earth's acceleration will be about 300,000 times the sun's. <<<<snip>>>>

I agree with you, except for one little quibble (Which relates to the whole argument...)
The Earth (or any planet(oid) has no weight It/they are in a free-falling orbit about a point. centrigugal acceleration is exactly equal to gravitational acceleration. thus, m*x'' (cent)=m*x''(grav), and the sum of forces acting on the body are zero
by definition, no force=no weight.
Mass, now--that's a different story...

[Kaydens]

With thanks to Synchronicity:

CAI will write a check for $1,000 to the first person who can prove that all we see in the universe is a result of natural transformism (or even intermittent supernatural transformism). If you lose, then we ask that you make a donation to the apostolate of CAI.

The specific question on the table in regard to the $1,000 Challenge is this: It is a fact of science that species of animals contain the genetic information in their DNA which is specific to that species. Fish have fish DNA; birds have bird DNA; and animals have animal DNA. It is also a fact that in order to produce a fish, a bird, or an animal from an upward progression of biological material, the fish or bird or animal must somehow acquire the genetic material needed for its species. That being the case, can any Evolutionist tell us how, when, and from where does any particular species acquire this new and specific genetic material if, as is commonly understood, the genetic material did not exist before that specific species existed? If anyone can prove this process to us by the known facts of science, consider yourself the winner of $1,000 from CAI!


So presumably they never heard about the experiment where DNA from an arctic fish was transplanted into a tomato plant to stop it freezing in the winter.

Admitedly the experiment didn't work but the genes were present. Of course, to the CAI, this is going to be because you can't put fish DNA in plants.

Mind you it also makes you wonder how come we can use pig insulin to treat diabetes sufferers. Surely since insulin is manufactured in the pig's body (and therefore manufactured according to the pig's DNA) it should be incompatible with our human DNA, right?

Plus isn't it cute how fish and birds aren't animals to these scientrific (not a typo) thinkers! I've also got to love that "upward progression of biological material". I mean we're obviously higher up the biological ladder than fish, despite lacking all those nifty abilities such as the ability to detect electrical impulses from anothers muscle contractions, or being able to control chromophores for camouflage! And birds, well they've got to be further down the scale than us right? Despite the fact that most of them can fly, just like angels can!

Kaydens.

[sphenisc]

I just watched a bird in my garden acquire some worm DNA, do I win?

[wdsmith]

Originally posted by rwguinn
I agree with you, except for one little quibble (Which relates to the whole argument...)
The Earth (or any planet(oid) has no weight It/they are in a free-falling orbit about a point. centrigugal acceleration is exactly equal to gravitational acceleration. thus, m*x'' (cent)=m*x''(grav), and the sum of forces acting on the body are zero
by definition, no force=no weight.
Mass, now--that's a different story...

I respectfully disagree for the following reason: If the net force on a moving object is zero, that object will move in a straight line. Obviously, the planets are not moving in straight lines. They have a net force applied to them which keeps them moving around the sun instead of shooting off into space.

"Centrifugal force" is not a real force. If you are on a merry-go-round (a fast one :D ), what you interpret as centrifugal force is merely your body's reaction to the centripetal force of the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round exerts a force on your body towards the center of the merry-go-round. Your body also exerts an equal and opposite force on the merry-go-round. The sensation of these forces feels like something is trying to pull you off of the merry-go-round, when in fact the merry-go-round is trying to keep you moving in a circle instead of a straight line.

This is another example of how our senses can fool us.

And also, looking back on my first post, I was a bit sloppy when I stated the weights of the earth and sun. Those numbers are masses. Oopsie.

[Hastur]

The CAI evolution challenge sounds a [Rule 8] of a lot like the initial challenge to Darwin's theory about where genetic diversity came from. Gregor Mendel solved that through his pea plant experiments. The next question would be where the dominant/recessive genes came from.* As I remember from Biology 101, they were always present in DNA, it's merely a question of what and how well the RNA reads it. I'd love to go 10 rounds with Sungenis and shut his woo face up, but with the bar exam three weeks from now, I do not have the time to make such a commitment. Add on the fact that it is quite apparent that Sungenis is being dishonest and it looks like a waste of processing power.


*A note for the real Biology buffs here: YES, I know this is a gross oversimplification but there really is no other way describe it right now.

[BillyJoe]

wdsmith

Originally posted by wdsmith
If you are on a merry-go-round.....what you interpret as centrifugal force is merely your body's reaction to the centripetal force of the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round exerts a force on your body towards the center of the merry-go-round. Your body also exerts an equal and opposite force on the merry-go-round. The sensation of these forces feels like something is trying to pull you off of the merry-go-round.... I don't think this quite accounts for the sensation of being pulled off the merry-go-round. If you are in orbit around the Earth, you won't get the sensation of being pulled off into space. Why not?

It seems to me the reason is that gravity acts on your body as a whole. Or, in other words, gravity acts on every part of your body. The merry-go-round, on the other hand, acts on only a part of your body.

On the merry-go-round, imagine that you are standing close to a bar fixed to the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round suddenly starts spinning very fast. You grab hold of the bar and your hands stay where they are fixed onto the bar. The rest of your body flings outwards. Your feet feel as if they are pulled out from under you and and end up about 7 ft away from the bar.
So I think it is the fact that the force of the merry-go-round is exerted directly on only one part of your body, whilst the rest of your body flings outwards, that you feel as if there is a force being applied to you trying to pull you off the merry-go-round. And you hold firmly onto the bar in a desperate attempt to stop this force from pulling you off.

Otherwise why wouldn't you feel the same sensation whilst in orbit around the Earth (for simplicity, imagine it is just you in orbit around the Earth).

BillyJoe

[Kaydens]

BillyJoe, I admit I'm no physicist and I haven't even explored the math for this let alone solved the equations but; couldn't you make the argument that the difference in sensations that you refer to could be the vast difference in terms of the forces?

I mean when we're talking about the merry-go-round then the forces exterted due to acceleration and angular movement far outweigh the force of the gravitational pull that it exerts. Whereas with the earth you'd be talking about a much higher contribution from gravity than you would from the angular motion.

Don't orbital paths have escape velocities? As I said, I've not got any solid grounding in this subject so please point out my mistakes. Orbital dynamics isn't something I'm overly familiar with.

Kaydens.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
wdsmith

I don't think this quite accounts for the sensation of being pulled off the merry-go-round. If you are in orbit around the Earth, you won't get the sensation of being pulled off into space. Why not?

It seems to me the reason is that gravity acts on your body as a whole. Or, in other words, gravity acts on every part of your body. The merry-go-round, on the other hand, acts on only a part of your body.

On the merry-go-round, imagine that you are standing close to a bar fixed to the merry-go-round. The merry-go-round suddenly starts spinning very fast. You grab hold of the bar and your hands stay where they are fixed onto the bar. The rest of your body flings outwards. Your feet feel as if they are pulled out from under you and and end up about 7 ft away from the bar.
So I think it is the fact that the force of the merry-go-round is exerted directly on only one part of your body, whilst the rest of your body flings outwards, that you feel as if there is a force being applied to you trying to pull you off the merry-go-round. And you hold firmly onto the bar in a desperate attempt to stop this force from pulling you off.

Otherwise why wouldn't you feel the same sensation whilst in orbit around the Earth (for simplicity, imagine it is just you in orbit around the Earth).

BillyJoe

Not quite, Billyjoe:
The acceleration is acting on your whole body. Your arms are exerting the force that keeps you aboard. Do a free-body diagram...
The difference in forces is a direct result of the distance from center. Your legs are say, 2 meters further from the center of rotation than your hands. In a 150km orbit, that is a small effect. On a 3 meter merry-go-round, it is significant.

And wdsmith:
Yes, there are forces acting on the body--but they are in equilibrium.

Nobody said a thing about centrifugal force--it is acceleration being discussed. (you can quibble over that all you want)
Centrepital acceleration is a result of the circular motion of a body. The mathematical value is r*w^2, where r is the radius of the circle, and w is the circular frequency (Radians/second)
Since centrepital acceleration forces the body to change direction (This is the gravitational acceleration acting on the body), the body's velocity is constantly changing (Velocity is a vector). The time rate of change of velocity is acceleration. This is the centrifugal acceleration, and it acts outward (away from the center of rotation
this circular velocity is always tangential to the circle. it is the straight line velocity should the centrifugal acceleration fail, and it acts opposite the centrepital acceleration. When r*w^2=g (where g is the local gravitational acceleration), then the sum of forces F=0.00
Should one of the two fail (ie, w-->0, or g-->0) then the object will travel in a straight line, either toward the center of mass (where w-->0), or tangentially off into space (where g-->0)
since the two accelerations are absolutely related to each other (assume g=constant,or reasonably so for some particular mass), if we increase the orbital velocity (w), then r must get bigger unless another force acts on things to maintain equilibrium.
http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy121/LectureNotes/Chapter14/Chapter14.html
also:
http://solarsails.jpl.nasa.gov/introduction/how-sails-work.html
has a pretty good diagram...

Now there are a number of folks who will take violent exception to my terminology, and my engineering poit-of-view on the world. Have at it. The princple remains...

[rwguinn]

ignore most of the above...I am not an astrophysicist, but an engineer.
What I posted does apply to centrifuges, not necessarily to orbits, although some of it does (if g or w go away...) but it is a really (rule 8) bad description of why free-falling objects have no weight...
Jump out of an airplane carrying a scale. the scale will register no weight because you are falling with exactly the same acceleration as gravity causes you to fall. An orbiting object has the exact same problem-it is falling toward the center of mass of the larger object (assuming large mass differences between the two objects), but because it has a tangential velocity (w), the center of mass has moved (relative to the falling object), and the direction of fall must continually change. the fall continues.

The merry-go-round and stuff in the previous post does, however, partially explain wha a person weighs less at the earths equator than he/she does at the pole. see Hal Clemmet's Mission of Gravity for a cute story based on that fact..

[wdsmith]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I don't think this quite accounts for the sensation of being pulled off the merry-go-round. If you are in orbit around the Earth, you won't get the sensation of being pulled off into space. Why not?

It seems to me the reason is that gravity acts on your body as a whole. Or, in other words, gravity acts on every part of your body. The merry-go-round, on the other hand, acts on only a part of your body.

Exactly correct! Although I can't help but tinker with your phrasing a bit: The merry-go-round does act on your entire body, but it has to act through the parts which are in direct contact with the merry-go-round.

It's the same when you are standing on the ground. Gravity is pulling your entire body (bones, muscles, organs), but all of your support (the upward force from the ground) has to come through your feet. You "feel" your weight because you feel your muscles and organs hanging from your skeleton.

Originally posted by rwguinn
ignore most of the above...I am not an astrophysicist, but an engineer.
What I posted does apply to centrifuges, not necessarily to orbits, although some of it does (if g or w go away...) but it is a really (rule 8) bad description of why free-falling objects have no weight...

Even the NASA page about solar sails has a mistake. In one paragraph, they mention "the outward centrifugal force, mv^2/r, of the spacecraft's motion." The quantity mv^2/r is actually the centripetal acceleration required to cause an object of mass m to move at speed v in a circular path of radius r. The spacecraft's motion does not cause a force, centrifugal or otherwise. It is the force of gravity which causes the circular motion.

And I'm an engineer, too -- mechanical, to be precise. Dynamics was one of my favorite classes. :biggrin:

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by wdsmith
Exactly correct! Although I can't help but tinker with your phrasing a bit: The merry-go-round does act on your entire body, but it has to act through the parts which are in direct contact with the merry-go-round.

It's the same when you are standing on the ground. Gravity is pulling your entire body (bones, muscles, organs), but all of your support (the upward force from the ground) has to come through your feet. You "feel" your weight because you feel your muscles and organs hanging from your skeleton.


Even the NASA page about solar sails has a mistake. In one paragraph, they mention "the outward centrifugal force, mv^2/r, of the spacecraft's motion." The quantity mv^2/r is actually the centripetal acceleration required to cause an object of mass m to move at speed v in a circular path of radius r. The spacecraft's motion does not cause a force, centrifugal or otherwise. It is the force of gravity which causes the circular motion.

And I'm an engineer, too -- mechanical, to be precise. Dynamics was one of my favorite classes. :biggrin:
Yeah--well, I have been doing it a while, now. It's like explaining Algebra II to my son. Been doing it so long, its like breathing, and you forget the basics. I Just have to remember reference frames. That r*W^2 acceleration is absolutely true, if you want to simulate a constant acceleration, such as in a centrifuge. It works there-- it is not necessarily the proper description for a falling body in orbit.

[BillyJoe]

wdsmith,

Originally posted by wdsmith
Exactly correct! Although I can't help but tinker with your phrasing a bit: The merry-go-round does act on your entire body, but it has to act through the parts which are in direct contact with the merry-go-round. Yes, I did qulaify this later on: "...the force of the merry-go-round is exerted directly on only one part of your body..."

Originally posted by wdsmith
It's the same when you are standing on the ground. Gravity is pulling your entire body (bones, muscles, organs), but all of your support (the upward force from the ground) has to come through your feet. You "feel" your weight because you feel your muscles and organs hanging from your skeleton.Yeah, I guess if there was a wall around the periphery of the merry-go-round and you stood on this wall and the merry-go-round was moving very fast, it would feel like the effect of gravity.

BJ

[sphenisc]

http://www.mut.ac.th/~physics/PhysicsMagic/wall.htm

Something like this.

[rwguinn]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
wdsmith,

Yes, I did qulaify this later on: "...the force of the merry-go-round is exerted directly on only one part of your body..."

Yeah, I guess if there was a wall around the periphery of the merry-go-round and you stood on this wall and the merry-go-round was moving very fast, it would feel like the effect of gravity.

BJ
There is a carnival ride that is exactly that- Actually, more than one. They are essentially centrifuges.
One of them has you stand against the wall, the thing starts spinning, and they drop the floor out from under you. The wall is rubber/sticky, so the gravity part of the force vector doesn't slide you down the wall.
The other ride starts spinning (you stand against a metal mesh wall and are not strapped in!), and then it tilts to the vertical...

[BillyJoe]

Well, I had to ask my son - he informed me that it is called a "Graviton"......

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/images/stronggravity/pinned4_med.jpg

[Vince]

.Sungenis’s challenge is to prove heliocentrism, not to disprove geocentrism. He has declined to take up Randi’s challenge: “Unfortunately for you and Randi, we never claimed to have proof that the sun goes around the earth, so perhaps Randi is out for sensationalism to promote his website. We only challenge heliocentrists who claim they have proof of heliocentrism. So perhaps you can tell Randi that his offer is bogus.�

He does not seem to be asking for the usual form of scientific proof, which, I thought, involves the attempted falsification of proposed hypotheses by repeatable observation or experiment. He excludes all but “direct� arguments (whatever that means), although scientist often rely on indirect evidence. His methods are modeled on the Inquisition, with himself as the sole Inquisitor, prosecutor, judge, and jury for all challenges. He makes several points:

1. He supports a Tychonic model, not a Ptolemaic model. He says the Earth is stationary, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and the other planets revolve around the Sun.

2. He also denies that the Earth rotates. (I assume that the Earth at the center of a hypothetical geocentric model could rotate, but he seems to reject this). He says that “Foucault pendulums do not prove heliocentrism�: “they only prove that there is a force moving the pendulum in a parabola.�

3. He says that “the General Relativity allow for the stars to travel at warp speed around the earth (sic)."

4. Repeated observations of stellar parallax since 1838 have shown that nearer stars appear to shift their positions against more distant stars at six-month intervals as the Earth circles the Sun. He says that “stellar parallax doesn't prove heliocentrism, since it also works in a geocentric system. All one need do is move the stars instead of the earth and one will get the same subtended angle as in the heliocentric system.� One is left to wonder how or why one would move those stars. Is it for the sole purpose of tricking Earth observers into thinking that they are in orbit around the Sun?

5. He agrees with the statement that “all working astronomers and astrophysicists (including all the Catholic ones) in the world are wrong.� Using the conventional scientific method, it would appear that the heliocentric hypothesis has not been falsified after 400 years of observation and experiment. This normally constitutes scientific proof, but not for him.

6. He seems to be something of an embarrassment to fellow Catholics, and his views have been vigorously attacked by Catholic scientists. Look at http://catholicoutlook.com/geocentrism.php, for just one example.

I don’t think Randi has much to worry about. Sungenis cannot accept the challenge because he admits that he cannot prove geocentrism scientifically, but as long as no one else can prove heliocentrism to his personal satisfaction, he will believe in it. This is too bad, because the challenge would have been very interesting to watch.

[BillyJoe]

Vince, the link doesn't work.

Oh, and welcome!

BJ
(This is the first time that I have been the first poster to welcome a first time poster. :) )

[Vince]

Thanks for the welcome aboad.
The link I gave seems to be offline today. I assume we can try it again later. This is the Google listing:

Catholic Outlook
Welcome My name is Gary Hoge (which rhymes with vogue). Welcome to my website!
If you want to learn more about the Catholic faith, you’ve come to the right ...
catholicoutlook.com

A Catholic bulletin board discusses this at http://www.catholic-forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=285. There is also an essay by a Catholic Ph. D. astrophysicist at http://www.ibri.org/Tracts/geocntct.htm. Any Google search will turn up other sites.

Vince