It’s a simplicity issue, i.e. the deciding factor is the math. There’s nothing inherently incorrect about a geocentric model, but when you try to explain planetary movements and have to come up with things like epicycles, it get unwieldy very quickly.
You can be perfectly happy with a geocentric model, though, if you limit yourself to only considering the apparent motion of the sun and ignore all else. Similarly, you can be perfectly happy with a flat-Earth model if you never go more than a mile or two in any direction, and ignore pesky conumdra like objects disappearing over the horizon and whatnot.
So, no, you can’t disprove the geocentric model, or indeed any model. You may be able, however, to find an alternative model that requires less complexity. In general practice, of course, complexity gets ignored. Astronomers and navigators have to be aware of the heliocentric model or their work gets too cumbersome. The average person…? Nah, let him keep talking about sunrises and sunsets. What difference does it make?
No, not at all. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics (which seems to be what you’re talking about) says that any system exists in an indeterminate state until observed, at which point the wave function collapses into a definite reality. But the beliefs and/or expectations of the observer don’t play any role in the event. The observer can even be a completely inanimate object like a camera or electrical sensor.
Geocentrism was disproven through astronomical observation long before Einstein’s day. We certainly wouldn’t be able to correctly calculate the trajectories required to send probes to other planets if we were mistaken about whether the Earth circled the Sun.
Epicycles also are incompatible with a consistent theory of gravity. When they were first proposed no one had any idea what force was holding planets to their fixed tracks in the sky. But knowing what we know now, epicycles raise the question: “What is keeping a planet moving in it’s epicycle?” There’s no big mass at the center of the epicycle for the planet to orbit, so you would have to introduce some mechanism other than gravity to explain the observed trajectory.
This guy obviously isn’t interested in discussing things seriously if his first response to criticism is to drag out cocksure arrogance and the “religious dogma” flavor of hyperbole. He’s just another crank armchair physicist who inflates his own ego by pretending to be the guardian of some secret insight that somehow makes sense only to him, and which he must defend against the combined evil might of the ivory tower intellectual “establishment.”
If he wants to rest his arguments on the basis of challenging the idea that there is no privileged or “absolute” reference frame, let him defend that assertion with real evidence. In his own words, let’s refrain from “[bouncing] around from point to point to confuse the issue.” Instead of begging the question, instead of vague and confused pseudo-scientific meandering, let him outline precisely why he thinks an absolute frame might exist, what physical evidence supports this hypothesis and why, and what experiments might employed to further clarify the issue.
I don’t expect much; several of the physical scenarios he proposed were outright nonsense betraying a complete lack of understanding of basic physics, and what is more are quite easily demonstrated as false. We’ve sent a lot of rockets accelerating from earth in many directions – when has any astronaut ever reported that g-forces somehow lessened or stopped even while the engines were burning?
But if he can coherently express his basic premise regarding the absolute reference frame, we might have something to respond to. In other words, let him present a concise thesis. As Jefferson said, ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.
dontbesojumpy, I let this roll for a while on the grounds that somewhere in your effort there would be an actual discussion that we could tease out.
However, now you are simply acting as a middle man to carry messages back and forth between two message boards, (without a strong indication that you even understand what you are posting and with a clear tendency to encourage snide remarks in a way that will not further discussion).
This thread is closed.
If you want to discuss these issues, post them, one at a time, in separate threads, making a strong effort to make each issue clear and get it resolved, (on your own, not by quoting other message boards), before moving on to the next point.