Talk:Modern geocentrism

Creationism

Why is geocentrism in the creationism section? I guess they both presuppose biblical inerrancy, but it doesn't look as if they have anything else in common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngherappa (talk • contribs) 11:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree (and answer to an oldish post while at it in hopes of addressing this issue). At some parts the topic is treated simply as geocentrism, whether for religious or (pseudo)scientific reasons or just because of the lack of information, and at some points, the article even goes as far as to claim that all modern geocentrists are also creationists. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I respectfully yet strongly disagree; geocentrism should definitely be in the creationism section. Though not every creationist believes in geocentrism (in fact I suspect most do not, since many major creationist organizations do not), it is actually very closely tied to the arguments of a created universe. It's no coincidence that this was a great religious debate at the time of Galileo. For example, consider that evolution is scientifically impossible without the Big Bang, which is itself impossible without a heliocentric (standard Copernican) model of the universe. And that the Bible describes a geocentric model whenever it discusses the sun-earth or sun-universe relationship.

Also consider that many experts in cosmology (including Einstein and Hawking) routinely stress that a geocentric universe makes no sense (to exist that way naturally, not just as a coordinate system) without a specific reason for Earth being the center, which strongly implies a creator (this is also a common layman argument). Because of this, most mainstream cosmologists, when presented with evidence for an Earth-centric universe simply dismiss it outright for philosophical reasons (opting to avoid the theology that follows necessarily from the geocentric model), presuming the heliocentric model is correct (as general relativity does not technically prefer one model over the other).

So I'm not saying geocentrism is a "Creationist" (tm) belief, in other words a required/key/major component of the modern creationist movement, but it is definitely and without question an idea centered in creationism/theism, and has been as long as its been around. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC) (edited my comment) 65.128.191.161 (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Fodder for one side in the Creation-Evolution controvesy

The way this article is presented sounds like it came out of an NCSE web page. [1] Eugenie Scott places geocentrists between flat earthers and Young Earth creationism. But is there way geocentrism that relates to Creationism other than by disagreeing with modern astronomy the way YEC disagrees with modern biology (about evolution)?

In particular, does geocentrism of any kind mention how the earth and sun came into being? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the philosophical implications of geocentrism here on Wikipedia. Geocentrism, as a coordinate system, is widely used in most of modern (secular) rocket science. This is an example of the geocentric model being used without any philosophical or theological implications attached. But most of the time, when people talk about geocentrism they are talking about a literal geocentric model of the universe (aka the Ptolemaic Model). And yes, this has strong creationist implications. This is the generally the reason the belief exists (especially today in the face of such opposition from modern science, and at the risk of "looking like a fool") and why you would see it described on a creationist website.

Like you mentioned, and putting it as generally as possible, young earth disagrees with modern biology, but also implies creation, since (among other reasons) macroevolution is incompatible with that model. Likewise, a geocentric model of the universe implies creation. Here are some reasons:

1) There's no reason for Earth to naturally be the center of the universe, other than a creative force placing it there to demonstrate its importance

2) The Big Bang model is incompatible with an earth-centered universe. This puts a gaping hole in origin science

3) The Theory of Evolution requires the Big Bang model, which is incompatible with an earth-centered universe

Aside from implying creation in general, these elements (important Earth, young Earth, creative force, sun movement, fully-formed creation (vs. life evolving)), regardless of accuracy according to modern science, all line up perfectly with the Biblical description of creation.

So looking at the web link you provided, Scott is indeed correct in placing geocentrism on a continuum of beliefs between flat earthers and young earthers, in order from least-to-most widely accepted ideas, and also least-to-most literal interpretations of the Bible. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say, "The Theory of Evolution requires the Big Bang model"? Because it requires deep time? Why couldn't you have evolution in a steady state universe? Why couldn't God have created species after 13-some billion years in a Big Bang universe? Art Carlson (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant within modern accepted scientific theory (Steady State does not fit that). As for your last question, I didn't actually mention any incompatibility between creationism and a Big Bang universe / old earth. Though there may be; I'm sure some creationists have discussed that. My main argument in my comment above was that geocentrism is related to concepts of creation, but regarding your first question...

The evolution and formation of life in modern evolutionary theory, as I understand it, requires some presumptions based on Big Bang (or more specifically, the age, composition, and evolution of the Earth within this model). For example, the evolution of planets, a specific age of the universe (and the background radiation from the Big Bang to measure it), etc. Radiometric dating relies on Big Bang and its phenomena for presuming constant decay rates, closed radioactive systems, and initial conditions to arrive at a 4.5B year age of the earth. There have been measurements of the age of the universe outside of cosmic radiation, but generally the Big Bang gives the age of the universe as well. Not to mention a point of origin, unlike Steady State. So there are solid scientific arguments to be made that evolution requires Big Bang, though there isn't much discussion of this outside creationist circles simply because modern science accepts both models as true, and thus there is no reason to attempt to examine one outside the other. Here's a creationist link I dug up that explains radiometric dating in the context of Big Bang: [[2]] 65.128.191.161 (talk) 16:56, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your arguments - to the extent that I can understand them. But it doesn't matter unless you want to use them to justify changes to the article. (And the creationist link you gave only mentioned the Big Bang once, in passing.) Art Carlson (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The Preamble is simply wrong

The opening preamble is very POV and does not reflect current geocentrism views.

First, the sun is the gravitational center of the Solar System only if considered as an isolated system. This is obvious even from heliocentric views, which consider that the Sun orbits some arbitrary point in the Galaxy, and so forth.

Second, from asserting the above as a fact, either out of malice or ignorance the editor assumes that the Copernican principle is a fact too, and it obviously isn't.

Third, modern geocentrism being a part of Creationism series is obviously POV. Creationists may support geocentrism, for obvious reasons, but there's no explicit or even implicit relation. Geocentrism can and is defended on pure scientific grounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.148.77 (talk) 22:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed the preamble so it's more clear. I don't think there was any argument trying to be made that our sun is the center of the universe according to modern heliocentrism, nor that a geocentric model cannot be secular in nature. But geocentrism, especially modern geocentrism, the focus of this article, does fit pretty squarely under a creationism topic. And with all the confusion written in the Talk page about how the two concepts relate, the article should be much more clear about this.

Geocentrism, as in "the belief that Earth is naturally and literally the center of the universe" (that is, not simply a coordinate system or model), has strong ties to creationism (the concept of a created universe, not necessarily the modern movement we call creationism) all throughout history, especially Galileo's trouble with the Church.

I don't believe there is much argument anywhere that geocentrism can stand alone, with any reasonable scientific or even logical merit, without an origin theory. This is because Earth as the center of the universe, without being placed deliberately by intelligent intent, simply makes no sense (for example if by chance, it is essentially impossible). So you cannot suggest such a thing without immediately running into origin theory, specifically creationism. And because a geocentric universe is incompatible with the Big Bang and modern evolution models, you also lose all reasonable explanation for origins of universe and life with a secular model, in direct conflict of both modern science AND theology.

To be fair, yes, technically one could argue for a geocentric universe aside from any origin theory, despite the fact the Copernican principle is completely incompatible (because an Earth-centered universe, by definition, puts Earth in a central, specially favored position). Geocentric models at face value do not seek to "prove" God. But can you honestly point to any modern literature or movement that proposes a "secular" geocentric universe, let alone argue that this model has legitimate consensus over a creation-related geocentric model as to warrant a deliberate separation from even the topic of creationism? And I thought geocentrism itself was a fringe belief! I'm not sure where you're getting your idea of "modern geocentrism views", but only in ancient times was there a real possibility for a secular geocentric movement: there was simply no reasonable alternative to geocentrism, just like flat earth. 65.128.191.161 (talk) 03:38, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

What is this sentence about?

Unlike its historical counterpart, modern geocentrism is directly opposed to the modern scientific view of the universe, and is generally incompatible with many widely accepted models and theories (such as heliocentrism, the Big Bang, the theory of relativity, and evolution).

• In what respect does modern geocentrism have a different relationship to modern science than historical geocentrism?
• In what way is geocentrism incompatible with relativity? A nominal velocity greater than light for objects beyond Neptune does not produce a contradiction (violation of causality through superluminal signals) any more than faster-than light phase velocities or collapse of the wave packet do. In Big Bang theory points of the universe far enough apart are moving away from each other at greater than light speed.
• Evolution?!

The modern scientific view is essentially that geocentrism is meaningless, not wrong. Art Carlson (talk) 19:21, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "In Big Bang theory points of the universe far enough apart are moving away from each other at greater than light speed": Is there some way to measure this? Just because car A is moving 60% of c eastward from O and car B at 60% of c westward from O, does not mean that the speed of A relative to B (or B relative to A) is 120% of c (without regard to the intermediate O). If objects past Neptune circle the Earth once per day, distant ones are travelling MANY millions of time faster than c - relative to the Earth (and virtually not at all relative to one another).--JimWae (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I can't say I really understand this completely, but for starters,

• Faster-than-light#Universal_expansion: "Rules that apply to relative velocities in special relativity, such as the rule that relative velocities cannot increase past the speed of light, do not apply to relative velocities in comoving coordinates, which are often described in terms of the "expansion of space" between galaxies."
• Metric expansion of space: "While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, there is no such theoretical constraint when space itself is expanding."

Art Carlson (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So we seem to agree that theories that would have 2 OBJECTS moving faster than the speed of light (with respect to each other) violate the principle of relativity. The geocentric theory (at least the one where the Earth is not rotating) is susceptible to this criticism, correct? It also violates principles of gravitational theory by having more massive objects orbiting the less massive Earth (rather then v-v)--JimWae (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Special relativity is a local theory, so it can only make statements about the relative velocity of objects that are infinitesimally close to each other, which the Earth and Neptune are not. It's hard to find good explanations of this problem, but here are a couple more you might want to try:

• [3]: "Things actually can move faster than light relative to the coordinate system, it’s just that things cannot move past each other with a relative speed greater than light. ... In other words, the Neptune-moving-too-quickly argument sounds good, but in reality it doesn’t work, and we shouldn’t use it."
• [4]: "Neptune has its high peripheral velocity therefore only relative to ideal rest points, but not relative to points which can be realized materially."

Art Carlson (talk) 14:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge completed

Per the consensus of the AfD, the merge was completed.

Junjunone (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)