"Prosperity Gospel"

[brooklynguy]

Mefla, I won't pretend to understand the details (or the mathematics) of what you and Cathy are arguing about, but I think your intimate understanding of the weeds on this subject may be preventing you from seeing the trees, let along the forest, of what Cathy actually said.

Cathy or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my layperson's interpretation of her posts on this subtopic, what she said was nothing more than an observation about the relativity of motion:  all motion is relative to whatever you select as your fixed point of reference, and the selection of any particular point of reference to describe the motion of any object is no more intrinsically "correct" or "incorrect" than the selection of any other point of reference.

[Cathy]

Cathy or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my layperson's interpretation of her posts on this subtopic, what she said was nothing more than an observation about the relativity of motion:  all motion is relative to whatever you select as your fixed point of reference, and the selection of any particular point of reference to describe the motion of any object is no more intrinsically "correct" or "incorrect" than the selection of any other point of reference.

This is an accurate rendition of what I said, but to satisfy the physics experts I would add the following clarification (which I've also mentioned in my past posts):

Under classical mechanics, an inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating. One of the most important ideas in classical mechanics is that in any inertial frame of reference, the laws of physics (ignoring general relativity and quantum mechanics) take on the very simple and well-known form of Newton's laws of motion. However, the reference frame centred at the centre of Earth is not inertial and therefore, when you choose this as your frame of reference, you have to derive different laws of physics, not the well-known simple statement of Newton's laws of motion. This is, again, not a property of the universe, but is a property of classical mechanics. Much of mefla's complaints amount to saying that Newton's laws do not work if you take Earth to be the centre of the universe. That is correct, but that is just a fact about classical mechanics -- it's not a fact about the universe (and it really wasn't relevant to the claim I made, but I'm just explaining it because it seems to be what tripped up mefla). The Einstein source also discusses this.

[Faraday]

Cathy or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but according to my layperson's interpretation of her posts on this subtopic, what she said was nothing more than an observation about the relativity of motion:  all motion is relative to whatever you select as your fixed point of reference, and the selection of any particular point of reference to describe the motion of any object is no more intrinsically "correct" or "incorrect" than the selection of any other point of reference.

This is an accurate rendition of what I said, but to satisfy the physics experts I would add the following clarification (which I've also mentioned in my past posts):

Under classical mechanics, an inertial reference frame is one that is not accelerating. One of the most important ideas in classical mechanics is that in any inertial frame of reference, the laws of physics (ignoring general relativity and quantum mechanics) take on the very simple and well-known form of Newton's laws of motion. However, the reference frame centred at the centre of Earth is not inertial and therefore, when you choose this as your frame of reference, you have to derive different laws of physics, not the well-known simple statement of Newton's laws of motion. This is, again, not a property of the universe, but is a property of classical mechanics. Much of mefla's complaints amount to saying that Newton's laws do not work if you take Earth to be the centre of the universe. That is correct, but that is just a fact about classical mechanics -- it's not a fact about the universe (and it really wasn't relevant to the claim I made, but I'm just explaining it because it seems to be what tripped up mefla). The Einstein source also discusses this.

So, what I'm seeing right now is:

1) You've stopped saying the "geocentric model is equal to the heliocentric model", right?

2) I agree with you that coordinate transformations are trivial. But where we disagree is that you seem to think they are useful for going "from one intertial frame to the other". I don't like that term, but if it means more than a 2D massless universe, then I disagree.

3) I do not say "Newton's laws do not work if you take the earth as the center of the universe". What I claim is that choosing to make the earth the center of the universe is a useless exercise that yields nothing of consequence. Saying "Newton's laws do not work" somehow implies that a law is not a law, when instead, you're simply working with a trivial model: 2D space with the assumption that all planets are massless points of zero size and density.

I don't say "Newton's laws do not work". That's a foolish idea without a lot of qualification. 

4) If this discussion was about the relativity of motion, then you have to discard the terms "geocentric model" and "heliocentric model". In that case, it becomes a conversation about 2D positional modeling. Which is not at all the thing the church tried to kill Galileo for espousing.

[Cathy]

Which is not at all the thing the church tried to kill Galileo for espousing.

With the greatest respect, mefla, I find your arguments very difficult to follow. I am sure you are brilliant at physics, but your prose could use some improvement. I am not actually sure what you are trying to say in your most recent post. Sorry.

That said, I think there may still be some confusion because I have never said that the ecclesiastical ideas about the solar system were correct. In fact, I've repeatedly said they were wrong, including in my first post on this topic. The only hint that the religious model was correct was in the Einstein quote I gave, but he was just rhetorically invoking Ptolemy's name to refer to a coördinate system with Earth at the centre of the universe -- i.e. a geocentric model. I can see how that quote might have confused you, but the true meaning would be obvious if you had clicked the link.

[Cathy]

mefla, it occurs to me that another thing that may have thrown you off is the fact that I chose to specifically talk about geocentrism. What I'm saying works for any point in the universe. You could choose the centre of Pluto to be the centre of the universe as well. There's nothing special about Earth in that sense.

[Faraday]

So, what I'm seeing right now is:

1) You've stopped saying the "geocentric model is equal to the heliocentric model", right?

2) I agree with you that coordinate transformations are trivial.

You can tell me all day long that I'm confused, but these two items are what's important. If you want to redefine these terms to mean a 2d coordinate transformation, that abstracts the science into mere subjectivism.

Which is not at all the thing the church tried to kill Galileo for espousing.

With the greatest respect, mefla, I find your arguments very difficult to follow. I am sure you are brilliant at physics, but your prose could use some improvement. I am not actually sure what you are trying to say in your most recent post. Sorry.

You used the terms "geocentric model" and "heliocentric model". These terms mean very specific things in physics, astrophysics and history. Those terms do not  describe a simple change of coordinate origins.

Your point was so factually incorrect, that a tangential result of acceptance of your point could cause one not to understand the core of the argument and why what the church did was so bad, and frankly, so non-biblical.

[Cathy]

So, what I'm seeing right now is:

1) You've stopped saying the "geocentric model is equal to the heliocentric model", right?

2) I agree with you that coordinate transformations are trivial.

You can tell me all day long that I'm confused, but these two items are what's important. If you want to redefine these terms to mean a 2d coordinate transformation, that abstracts the science into mere subjectivism.

I'm a little unclear on what you thought you were arguing against, mefla. Your first bullet point implies that you think my position has changed, but it certainly has not. I've taken the same position in all my posts here.

As mentioned, the centre of mass of the solar system is closer to the Sun than to the Earth (as distinguished from the positional or geometric centre, which can be chosen arbitrarily). This is true in both the heliocentric and geocentric models. Indeed, it is true regardless of which model is used, but it's worth noting that the centre of mass of the solar system is not at the centre of the Sun, and sometimes isn't even within the Sun. In other words, the heliocentric frame is not inertial and Newton's laws of motions do not apply in their classical form in the heliocentric model. In that sense, we could say the heliocentric model is less useful than a model centred at the actual centre of mass of the solar system. However, as mentioned, all of these models are valid; it's merely the mathematical complexity that varies.

You used the terms "geocentric model" and "heliocentric model". These terms mean very specific things in physics, astrophysics and history. ...

I disagree with your assertion that these terms mean anything other than "earth-centred" and "sun-centred". A model where Earth is at the centre of the universe is geocentric. However, even if these terms had other well-known meanings, it was obvious from my posts that I meant "earth-centred" and "sun-centred" especially since I explained it many times and repeatedly stated that I was not talking about any ecclesiastical model of the solar system (although you repeatedly ignored me saying that).

Your point was so factually incorrect, that a tangential result of acceptance of your point could cause one not to understand the core of the argument and why what the church did was so bad, and frankly, so non-biblical.

You still have not identified any factual errors in my numerous posts, but I am getting the impression that it is futile to express this point to you.

[Faraday]

So, what I'm seeing right now is:

1) You've stopped saying the "geocentric model is equal to the heliocentric model", right?

2) I agree with you that coordinate transformations are trivial.

You can tell me all day long that I'm confused, but these two items are what's important. If you want to redefine these terms to mean a 2d coordinate transformation, that abstracts the science into mere subjectivism.

I'm a little unclear on what you thought you were arguing against, mefla. Your first bullet point implies that you think my position has changed, but it certainly has not. I've taken the same position in all my posts here.

As mentioned, the centre of mass of the solar system is closer to the Sun than to the Earth. This is both in true the heliocentric and geocentric models. Indeed, it is true regardless of which model is used, but it's worth noting that the centre of mass of the solar system is not at the centre of the Sun, and sometimes isn't even within the Sun. In other words, the heliocentric frame is not inertial and Newton's laws of motions do not apply in their classical form in the heliocentric model. In that sense, we could say the heliocentric model is less useful than a model centred at the actual centre of mass of the solar system. However, as mentioned, all of these models are valid; it's merely the mathematical complexity that varies.

This is a fight you may have fallen into accidentally, not understanding the import of what you are saying.
http://www.amazon.com/Galileo-Was-Wrong-Church-Right/dp/0977964000

I agree with one reviewer's statement: "This is a fight on the scale of denying the holocaust ever happened."
The geocentric model was built before Newton destroyed it with the concepts of physics. We can give no credence to the idea that one is equal and valid to the other.

Now: Einstein's relativity is just fine. I have no quarrel. But relativity is a special case of Newtonian physics and applies at speeds far exceeding those of the relative motions of our planets. We have to get a rocket to Mars, we use all the science since Newton to do that. We don't go to the church's geocentric model to get to Mars.

Somehow, you seem to think geocentricity has some form of validity, although it was never a "discovered" idea, it was an "invented" idea, spawned from astrology. Before Newton, mankind had to keep modifying the theory to fit observed facts. Newton unified gravity and acceleration into one clear, revolutionary theory.

God, I wish Newton were here. I am but a poor stand-in, a clown arguing with finger-puppets on the wall.

[Cathy]

I think I understand what ruffled your feathers now, mefla. You think I'm arguing that Galileo did not make a significant contribution to science with his heliocentric model. Rest assured that I am not suggesting that Galileo was insignificant. However, saying that Galileo showed that the Earth revolves around the Sun, or that geocentrism was wrong, are imprecise ways of framing his contribution because, as mentioned, there is no true centre of the solar system and any point will work. Galileo's contribution can instead be framed as follows: Galileo showed that the reference frame centred at Earth was not inertial, while the reference frame centred at the Sun was approximately inertial.

None of my posts in this topic have relied on any concepts from general relativity. In general relativity, there are no inertial reference frames, but there is a concept of a "locally inertial" frame, and in that language, we can say that Galileo's contribution was showing that the reference frame centred at the Sun is approximately locally inertial.

[Faraday]

I disagree with your assertion that these terms mean anything other than "earth-centred" and "sun-centred".

That, my friend, is the centre of this discussion, isn't it? OF course I disagree with you, that "geocentric model" and "heliocentric model" mean these things, because gravity and mass cannot exist in a geocentric model.

Remember: Newton discovered gravity and defined mass. Newton was born nearly a year to the day after Galileo died. There was no prior, meaningful concept of gravity and mass. Newton is believed to be the first human on the planet to have conceived these ideas.

My point is that you are using terms while not knowing the history of this fight. And now you are saying things which, taken out of context, seem remarkably true (I mean, it's only a coordinate transformation, right?) but you are adding in your own concept of gravity and mass, which were unknown when the geocentric model was formulated.

You remedy this by maintaining "new laws can be derived" but you have conceived a process that is the opposite of reality: The heliocentric model, with elliptical orbits, is predicted by Newtonian Physics. The geocentric model is massless and has no acceleration component - there are no new laws to derive with your simple coordinate transformation - you can't get to that point from the geocentric planetary model.

I don't know what important idea you claim that derives from a geocentric model, but the heliocentric model derives FROM Newtonian Physics. The geocentric model is simply a bastard with no parents.