Posted on 12/03/2009 8:35:52 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
None of your regurgitated quotes that you do not understand supply any support at all for your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance of the rest of the universe causing the Sun to orbit the Earth’ is “according to Einstein”.
You have supplied nothing but your own assertions that such is the case.
Blathering on and on about coordinate systems does nothing to support your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”.
To support your position you would need an actual quote from Einstein where he signs on to your “gravity imbalance” model, and there simply isn't any; because Einstein wasn't a moron.
It is absolutely true that you are in denial, yes.
"None of your regurgitated quotes that you do not understand supply any support at all for your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance of the rest of the universe causing the Sun to orbit the Earth’ is “according to Einstein”."
At least you no longer deny the equality of geocentrism and geokineticism under GR. That's good.
"Blathering on and on about coordinate systems does nothing to support your lie that your ‘gravity imbalance’ model is “according to Einstein”."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"To support your position you would need an actual quote from Einstein where he signs on to your “gravity imbalance” model, and there simply isn't any; because Einstein wasn't a moron."
I see that you have misrepresented your characterization of my position with my position. But I understand that is necessary for you to have a point.
What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation.
Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate.
Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in.
Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?
No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model.
The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm.
But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again.
What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie.
“Not according to Einstein” Gourmet Dan
You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie.
Again, according to Hoyle:
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
Again, according to Ellis:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
You pretend that equality is limited to CS when both Hoyle and Ellis note that they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and "you cannot disprove it based on observations"
"What they are NOT equivalent as is as a model of gravitation."
Geocentrism is a models of the universe, not of gravitation.
"Your contention that your “gravitational imbalance” model causing the Sun to orbit the Earth is “according to Einstein” was what I have asked in post after post for you to substantiate."
You keep misrepresenting this point. Geocentrism is that the earth is the CG of the universe.
"Nice to see that after a dozen or so posts the point finally starts to sink in."
Your misrepresentation has been clear all along. That does not make it a 'point'.
"Are you now going to actually supply any support at all that your system is “according to Einstein”?"
Sure.
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
"No. Of course you are not, because it was a lie, and Einstein would have to be an absolute moron to buy into your ludicrous model."
Not a lie at all, as the quote from Einstein shows.
"The gravity necessary to drag the Sun around the Earth would not leave the Earth motionless, but would sweep it up like a leaf in a storm."
Einstein, Hoyle and Ellis do not agree with you.
"But you are incapable of addressing this issue with any facts or figures involving the equation for gravitational attraction or any peer reviewed literature; so I stand ready for your to post your drivel about them being equivalent as coordinate systems again."
Again, Hoyle said they are "entirely equivalent from a physical point of view" and Ellis said "you cannot disprove it based on observations".
"What else can you do other than to repeatedly repeat yourself, you certainly cannot substantiate your lie."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
You have misrepresented the issue yet again. And again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
Geocentrism is the model where the earth is the CG of the universe under GR. Einstein developed GR. Geocentrism can be used with "equal justification" according to Einstein. It is 'according to Einstein'.
“So now once again you ARE saying that it is the gravity of the “rest of the universe” causing the Sun to move around the Earth. That is impossible. The gravity to cause the Sun to move around the Earth in such a way would sweep up the Earth like a leaf in a storm. Absolutely impossible.” allmendream
“Not according to Einstein” Gourmet Dan
You are unable to substantiate that the model described above is “according to Einstein”, this model is not “according to Einstein”, your contention that it is “according to Einstein” is a lie.
Actually, I have substantiated it. Your refusal to admit such notwithstanding.
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
All you did was blather on uselessly about coordinate systems after I had repeatedly acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems.
But I expect nothing less than you to repeat the same tired old quotes about them being equivalent as coordinate systems, what else can you do now that you are caught in a lie?
I have substantiated that geocentrism is equivalent to geokineticism under GR.
"All you did was blather on uselessly about coordinate systems after I had repeatedly acknowledged that they were equivalent as coordinate systems."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"But I expect nothing less than you to repeat the same tired old quotes about them being equivalent as coordinate systems, what else can you do now that you are caught in a lie?"
And we can expect nothing less than you to continue to deny that geocentrism is physically and observationally equivalent to geokineticism in the face of knowledgeable scientists who are telling you differently.
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
Your lie was that Einstein bought into your ‘Earth at the center of gravity of the universe’ model. That is absolutely not “according to Einstein”, when you suggested that your model was “according to Einstein” you lied.
Neither have you substantiated this supposed ‘gravity imbalance’ by any peer reviewed literature or equations that would show your model to even be possible.
There is nothing magical about being at the center of gravity that would keep the Earth at the center of gravity. The gravity between the Sun and Earth would still cause an orbital acceleration on the Earth unless countered continually by an equal and opposite force.
No wonder you are so reluctant to state your actual model, it is moronic, not supported by physics, not in the peer reviewed literature and absolutely NOT “according to Einstein”.
Unfortunately, according to Hoyle and Ellis, equivalence as a CS is the same as physical and observational equivalence. For some reason you continue to maintain that you can accept equivalence as a CS and yet reject equivalence physically and observationally. Hoyle and Ellis do not agree.
Again:
"...it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view..."
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
And again:
“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
"Your lie was that Einstein bought into your ‘Earth at the center of gravity of the universe’ model. That is absolutely not “according to Einstein”, when you suggested that your model was “according to Einstein” you lied."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
"Neither have you substantiated this supposed ‘gravity imbalance’ by any peer reviewed literature or equations that would show your model to even be possible."
Since GR is a gravitational model, a gravitational imbalance is the only possibility.
"There is nothing magical about being at the center of gravity that would keep the Earth at the center of gravity. The gravity between the Sun and Earth would still cause an orbital acceleration on the Earth unless countered continually by an equal and opposite force."
Which is what the gravitational imbalance does. The constant geokinetic error is to focus on the sun/earth CG instead of the CG of the universe. This is implicit in all of your objections and is an error.
'No wonder you are so reluctant to state your actual model, it is moronic, not supported by physics, not in the peer reviewed literature and absolutely NOT “according to Einstein”."
Again, trying to label opposing models with emotionally-charged terms and accusations is a fool's errand.
Again:
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.