In Response to Dr Bridgmans "Heliocentrism's 'Vested Interests'..."

Dr Bridgman has written an article entitled  "Heliocentrism's 'Vested Interests'..." where he attempts to show some reason for his contempt for geocentrism. We see below that his attempts fail badly.

I guess since the facts are against the Geocentrists, they have nothing better to argue.

James Philips (link): Please allow me to make the following observation. I note that generally those who seek to counter (not necessarily including yourself) John Martin and others who hold to the geocentric model of the universe on various blogsites (and sometimes websites) do so with a certain and peculiar viciousness. Such viciousness (maliciousness?) includes sarcasm to the nth degree and various gratuitous ad hominem attacks such as questioning the sanity or asserting the insanity of those who would even question the heliocentric model. This common type of rottweiler/pit bull seemingly fanatical kind of response to those who simply disagree with or question the heliocentric model certainly leaves one to wonder why the degree of viciousness.

To James Philips:

As for my viciousness (maliciousness), why would anyone in their right mind listen to 'knowledge' which does not come from some actual accomplishment in the field they are claiming?  Would you accept medical advice from an actor or other non-medical professional?  There are plenty of people that do that and worse (see What's the Harm?), and they can pay a high price for ignorance.

If you convince someone that a toxin is not poisonous, and they take a dose of the toxin and die, who is morally responsible for the death?  You?   Or do you just claim that it was their choice and go on your merry way?

Real lives depend on the proper computation of spacecraft trajectories, and not just the lives of astronauts (more below).  The Geocentrists have offered nothing but rhetorical games to back their claims - nothing of the rigor required by science and engineering beyond a word game to relabel the mathematics.

If Geocentrists want to essentially claim 1+1=3 with no evidence other than their say-so, and they are doing it in such a way that OTHERS will pay the price of Geocentrist ignorance, then Geocentrists are in no position to complain about the level of disrespect they are given.

My goal is that no one pays for Geocentrists' ignorance except the Geocentrists who are propagating (and a number of them are profiting) from spreading the ignorance.

James Phillips (link): “One thing is certain: the lives and careers of a good number of individuals in the scientific community are strongly tied to an ironclad maintenance of the heliocentric model.“

Indeed.  And not just in the scientific community... 

There are the lives of astronauts who must be able to trust their navigation.  Where's those geocentric navigation algorithms for them to compute their trajectories?  Haven't seen one yet, and suspect I never will.  So no Geocentists will be traveling beyond the Earth.

There are also the lives of people on Earth depending on earth and space weather forecasting that requires satellites in space.  Global communications depends on satellite technology.  If you don't know where your satellite is, you'll have a heck of a time getting the data back from it. 

YOUR life is better because of the heliocentric model, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

If someone wants to pontificate Geocentrist nonsense, then I suggest they move to a undeveloped country which does not have these advantages, where their ignorance will be welcomed and they can do less harm.  Otherwise they just look like hypocrites, reaping advantages of a technology that they clearly have no clue how it actually works.  Others who do know how it works will reap the benefits of better-paying jobs and other economic advantages.

Choose that route, and you'll have to give up your computer, your GPS-enabled cell-phone, any satellite-TV or similar service.  Since modern weather forecast simulations are initialized and checked using data from orbiting satellites, you'll have to give up using long-range weather forecasts.  If you get energy from any main power grids, the safety of those grids from eruptive solar phenomena is monitored by a fleet of solar-observing satellites, such as ACE, GeoTail, SOHO, STEREO ( YouTube: Sentinels of the Heliosphere).  And these are just the first order benefits.  I could go on about the spin-off benefits of the supporting technologies that were developed to achieve these capabilities.

Give up heliocentrism, and everyone in a modern society loses.  You lose as well, regardless of whether you are willing to believe it, or admit it.

But then, history is full examples of societies that fell from their pinnacle due to their collective dogmatic acceptance of some ignorance.

Some points –

The heliosphere shown in your video is the wrong shape. Apparently the correct shape is more like a sphere around the earth shown here - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091016101807.htm

Claiming our lives are better because of heliocentrism is devoid of content because you believe relativity which teaches whatever can be calculated in the moving earth frame can also be calculated in the stationary earth frame.

Claiming the space missions are calculated on the helio model, thereby making the moving earth model the better model is also fallacious because you have already stated it is possible within relativity to move the reference frame to a stationary earth.

As your claims are easily answered within your own relativist world view, then I see nothing in your post beyond vacuous claims backed up by no content whatsoever. In fact your world view is so mixed up, your link to the sentinels of the Heliosphere - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VH3Y-OfHnI implies you are not a true believer in relativity theory and you think there is something in the universe that points to a preferred reference frame.

If you a real believer in relativity, why not get together with your NASA and Goddard Flight Center friends and construct a You tube video showing us the satellite motions relative to a stationary earth. All you have to do is fix the earth and move the sun a little quicker and move the satellites in the same elliptical motions. It would be very easy to do and it would show the rest of the world how dedicated you are to relativity theory.

So far, it seems to me that you are a very confused man, because your science education has caused you to think in pragmatic compartments that allows you to both affirm the possibility of geocentrism, but deny its has any practical value and therefore deny that it could be what is really occurring in the universe. As such, you affirm relativity in one recent post, and then deny it in practice in the current post by affirming a preferred reference frame.

If you claim relativity is valid and a stationary reference frame would make the satellite calculations more difficult and therefore this means the heliocentric system is the preferred reference frame, then you have only done so, based on claims of mathematical convenience. But does mathematical convenience demonstrate that satellite orbits are really dependent upon the motion of lack of motion of the earth? Not according to relativity theory, with no preferred reference frame.

If you believe otherwise, then how does relativity provide the means to determine the true relative velocity of the earth around the sun? If relativity is correct, then we could assume any number of relative velocities of the sun and the earth, just so long as the total combined relative velocity between the sun and earth reduces to 30km/s. So relativity theory provides us with an infinite number of velocity solutions to choose from and that’s just between two bodies, yet we are supposed to believe the magic of 30km/s around the sun is the correct earth velocity, to the exclusion of a stationary Earth.

All in all, your recent post is really another demonstration of the modern fascination with eclectic theories about the nature of the solar system and the universe. If it “works” then you can boast about the moving earth and intellectually damn those who object, even though there may well be many other reasons to reject such a theory.

In fact geocentrists do have many reasons and those reasons are given in Galileo Was Wrong. I suggest you read it and then abandon your materialist, empiricist, pantheism in favor of a super-naturalist, creationist and geocentric understanding of the universe.

JM
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Some further thoughts on the above article.

We can go a step further than merely pointing out the obvious permission for more than one reference frame in relativity. We can ask Dr Bridgman to explain why relativity is based upon the definition of simultaneity, using a “stationary system” as stated here –

 “Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.² In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the “stationary system.”” http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Much of relativity is based upon this fundamental need for a stationary system to derive its equations. Einstein used this system in a thought experiment, yet if his theory is to be used in the real, the equations must be based upon a real “stationary system”. So if relativity is true, then a stationary system must exist in the real. Therefore Dr Bridgman should be able to tell us where this stationary system is in the real. Obviously we know where it is, but does he? No.

Alternatively, if this stationary system does not exist in the real, then relativity is only ever a thought system and isn’t possibly applicable in the real. But as it isn’t applicable in the real, how then does Dr Bridgman explain the real success of relativity?

It’s one of the great ironies of modern celestial mechanics that both Newtonian mechanics and relativity have the fundamental basis for their equations in the notion of a “stationary system”, be that either Newton’s absolute space, or Einstein’s non located “stationary system” in his thought experiment.

Even with this fundamental notion of a stationary system, almost universally recognized within both systems, the modern standard cosmological model says there is no place in the universe that is stationary. So we have yet another contradiction between theories. The Newtonian and relativity theories say there must a stationary system in the universe, yet the standard model says there must not be a stationary system within the universe, otherwise all bodies would end up moving towards each other and the total masses of the universe would tend to collapse in on itself.

How do we escape all these fundamental contradictions between modern celestial and cosmological theories? We embrace the true faith and recognize that God has programmed the rotating universe to have forces placed within it to prevent the masses from moving towards each other, through the combined action of the aether flow and the rotating firmament around the stationary earth. Only in this way, does the problem of the collapsing universe resolve itself without the need for the silliness of dark matter and dark energy and the ever expanding universe problem.

JM