Talk:Modern geocentrism

Ĉ

Archives

See past discussion in the archive:

• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive1
• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive2
• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive3
• Talk:Modern geocentrism/archive4

This is ridiculous

What it seems to me is that these supposedly "geocentrist" physicists are trying to fit the more general theories into something that lies somewhere in between in order to prove "geocentrism". Of course you can consider the Earth as your frame of reference and solve the equations from there, adding or subtracting correction terms in order to make it fit the known observable data. But this is incredibly bad science. This should be said specifically in the article. Earth's position in the universe isn't (or shouldn't be considered) privileged from the start just out of dogmatic belief. You can do so , but you are just trying to please yourself and your religious beliefs. Talk about bad science. This modern geocentrism movement is of the same kind as all those intelligent design/creationist mambo-jambo pseudo-scientific arguments we see sprouting from the more bigot every now and then --193.136.74.102 (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

also, it seems that what is said about the coriolis and centrifugal forces is incorrect. if you use the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian)formulation of the equations of motion for someone standing on the surface of the planet, you don't need the so-called "fictitious" forces (Coriolis, etc) - as the two terms (coriolis and centrifugal) will elegantly appear as you solve the equations (see http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-74572.html ), and yet you still need to consider rotation. Finally the coriolis effect is observable directly on the surface of this planet which is immediate evidence for its rotation. Using arguments arising from gravitomagnetism is obscure and far-fetched. The explanation given in the text is unclear... can anyone prove this mathematically? if so give out the results. --193.136.74.102 (talk) 17:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to this is ridiculous

It is NOT bad science to say that a there is no preferred frame of reference in General Relativity. As for geocentrism, it is very close to the frame of reference that we use every day. Any other frame of reference is just as valid, so there's nothing special about an Earth-centric reference frame, except that it is useful to us (when you walk down the street, do you worry about the fact that both you and your destination moves 30km every second relative to the Sun?). There is nothing special about a Sun-centered or fixed star centered or a center of the galaxy centered or any other frame, either. If Einstein was right, and there's considerable evidence backing up General Relativity, then there is no experiment that can distinguish among "the Earth orbits the Sun and rotates once per day" and "the Earth doesn't rotate but the entire universe, including the Sun, orbits the Earth once per day." This does not require any "correction terms" and there is no "in between" theory involved. You just transform Einstein's differential equations from one set of coordinates to the other. All of the forces, linear and rotational, emerge from the solution to the Einstein equations exactly as needed when you switch the reference frames to make it impossible to distinguish one from the other.

My relativity books are in storage, but Born's Einstein's Theory of Relativity is the clearest popular book that discusses this, and any standard General Relativity textbook goes into great detail. When I can dig them out, I'll add some math that explains this, but I think we ought to be able to make a clear qualitative statement about this that laymen can understand. "Relativity" means that no reference frame is favored over another. That is only true for non-accelerating frames in Special Relativity, but in General Relativity it is true for accelerating reference frames (including rotating frames), too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.134.75 (talk) 19:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between frames of reference even in General Relativity (GR). Only inertial frames (those that experience no forces acting on them) are fuly equivalent to each other. The geocentric view is NOT referring to an inertial frame, as the earth is constantly under the effect of the sun's gravitational force. This steady tangential (to the orbit) force causes the orbit to be circular/elliptical. The "heliocentric" view is truly inertial when reffering to the solar system (well, neglecting the sun orbiting the core of our galaxy and some other things that have no effect inside our solar system), as the sun's mass is big enough that the experienced gravitational acceleration through the planets is neglegible. Geocentrism is not a "valid" frame of reference, as it is not inertial. 88.130.81.166 (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Overview of modern geocentrism

I've reworded the second bullet point because I felt it was rather too rich in words like "supposedly" to be truly NPOV. Also I've attempted to make it a little clearer. Hopefully I have maintained the semantics of the section. SheffieldSteel 18:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This section is not neutral at all. It is clearly biased in favour of the point of view that the bible is not geocentric. A neutral point of view would come to the conclusion that the bible is geocentric. I think this section was written by someone desperate to show that a literal reading of the bible does not contradict reality when it clearly does.

Text moved from main page

I've moved this here just in case I'm mistaken about this...

Another is in Joshua 10, 12–13, where the Sun and Moon are said to stop in the sky:[1]

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

I think it shouldn't be in the article because it indicates a heliocentric, rather than geocentric, view of the universe. It clearly says "the sun was in the midst of heaven."

SheffieldSteel 04:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

For those who think they must draw astronomical conclusions from this text, the geocentric version is less contrived. Furthermore, this verse should stay in simply because it is commonly cited as Biblical evidence for geocentrism. If you have an attributable reference that suggests the other reading, that might be interesting to add. (I will wait a bit for further comment before putting the text back.) --Art Carlson 08:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

In what way is interpreting "the sun... in the midst of heaven" to mean that the earth is the centre of the universe less contrived than taking it to mean that the sun is? The passage does, after all, refer to the sun. And what is biblically based geocentrism, if not drawing astronomical conclusions from the text? SheffieldSteel 20:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"The Sun stood still ..." implies that it usually moves, and in particular that the daily motion is caused by the motion of the Sun rather than that of the Earth. "... in the midst of heaven" could refer to a central position for the Sun in the astronomical order, but that interpretation would be hard to reconcile with the Sun normally not standing still there. The more obvious interpretation is that the middle of the visible sky is meant. I personally think that such discussions are silly. Fortunately we don't have to agree on any interpretation, we just have to report how other people see it. --Art Carlson 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Geocentrism

I'm interested in knowing any modern sources regarding catholic geocentrism. I've never heard any catholic priest state that the earth is the center of the universe, and I can't help but wonder if that part of the article is attempting to single out the catholic faith (I honestly hope I'm wrong).

Punga 15:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Until about 1500 A.D., western Christianity was Catholicism. After 1500 A.D., Protestantism became distinct from Catholicism, but most of the high-profile religious pronouncements or incidents over challenges to geocentrism involved Catholic authorities (though there were certainly prominent Protestant geocentrists also, during the first few centuries). AnonMoos 15:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Many Catholics believe in geocentrism, including the Kolbe Center (Catholic Creation organization), John Salza (An author, who also runs ScriptureCatholic.com), and Robert Sungenis. --72.80.42.210 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The section should focus solely on the small minority of catholics who believe in it now, and not the history of the catholic church regarding Galileo (which is the central point now), as the subject of the article is modern geocentrism. I've also removed the statement about papal infallibility, as it appeared based on common misconceptions. --NEMT (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

(modern)

What is the technical difference between modern geocentrism and regular (classic?) geocentrism? I do not understand why they deserve different articles. The only difference between the theories is context. Jhalkompwdr 13:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Modern geocentrism is a reaction to a scientific theory that is percieved as contrary to religious mores. Classical geocentrism was a working scientific theory. The former subject is an analysis of a facet of modern culture while the latter is more in the topic of history of science. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.186.187 (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Physics expert requested on Gammay Ray Bursters and Red Shift

I tagged the Modern geocentrism and astronomical observations with {{Expert-subject|Physics}} because the first two subsections may be out of date or otherwise incorrect:

• The Gamma Ray Bursts section quotes Katz's 2002 book claiming GRBs are found in a spherical shell and that therefore a dilemma exists - have recent GRB findings shown this is no longer so? Our article on GRBs makes no mention and recent GRBs would seem to contradict this. If so the section should be rewritten in the past tense.

  This is still correct because GRBs are at cosmological distances. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• The Quantization of redshifts section makes claims that redshifts were observed to be quantized. Were they so observed, and if so, in which years and how much consensus was there? The section, which by the way needs citing througout, refers to studies, statistical methods, supporters and a minority of scientists, all unnamed. Can any flesh be put on these bones, and maybe the section improved to describe the state of science or belief at a particular time?

-Wikianon 17:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• There is almost zero consensus for redshift quantization beyond a trace due to large-scale structure. The only hold-outs are crumbums angry at the Big Bang. No one takes them seriously in the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

If GRBs are at cosmological distances, then the amount of energy in the original bursts become extremely and unbelievably high.

Extreme - beyond a doubt. Unbelievable - not. The current consensus is that the power is tightly beamed, so the total power is dramatically lower than if you assume isotropy. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, some of those "crunbums" include Halton Arp. Who is the "community"? Establishment US big bang cosmologists? Arp is working in Germany. He is unable to work in the US. What does that mean?

It seems reasonable to use "community" and "establishment" as roughly synonymous. There is no country in the world whose cosmology establishment (if they have one) seriously doubts the Big Bang, so it has nothing to do with the US. I work in the same institute as Halton Arp, and I haven't heard a peep of doubt of the Big Bang. --Art Carlson (talk) 07:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wyattmj (talk) 03:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Universal rotation

According to the first sentence, geocentrism is the belief that the earth neither moves nor rotates. For this to be true, the observed universe would have to rotate about the earth once every 24 hours, which implies some tremendous centripetal forces in action - or is there something implied in the term "inertial reference frame" that I'm missing? If so, it should be explained. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 15:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There are "tremendous centripetal forces". They are produced by gravitomagnetism. This is mentioned in the section Modern geocentrism#"The inertial frame is the only special rotation.". Do you think we need to go into more detail here? Or should the reader rather go to the gravitomagnetism article for details? --Art Carlson (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

General relativity?

The geocentrists that are closest to the scientific mainstream accept essentially all the observations of the mainstream. They point to the theory of general relativity, which says that all physical phenomena can be described and explained self-consistently in any frame of reference. Since the current state of physics does not single out the geocentric frame of reference as special in any way, this group claims the geocentric frame is special for alternative religious reasons.

This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special. The frame in which Sun is at rest or Sun is moving with a constant velocity are equivalent. Juggling sun around earth produces a load of systemic forces... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.243.49.127 (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The article is correct. Please read the whole article including the section called "The inertial frame is the only special rotation.", then try to understand the basics of gravitomagnetism. If you are still confused after that, you are welcome to come back with your questions (at least to the extent that they may help improve the article). --Art Carlson (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is of course wrong. All intertial frames are equivalent, but geocentric frame is an accelerated one and so it is special.

I question whether the geocentric frame is an accelerated one. It seems to me that saying it's an accelerated frame presupposes that the Earth is rotating, which geocentrism denies. If we say something is not in motion, that it's the only thing in the universe that's at rest, how can it be an accelerated frame? It's actually the only non-accelerated frame, and hence the only inertial frame.

^The text above here is not mine.^ The problem I have with this article is that it plays along with the now also outdated notion that the sun is in a special position.

This belief is directly opposed to scientific evidence that the Sun is essentially the gravitational center of the solar system, and that the location of the Earth is not privileged.

Geocentrism, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the gravitational center of anything. This article as currently written seems to me to be structured as a tidy example of how the Christians got it wrong and in being so structured it misses out on a true opportunity to give the up-to-date information to the reader, that in fact there is no center of the universe. There are NO issues that relate to the earth centered view that do not also relate to the sun centered view. The sun also rotates and revolves, and neither is its surface an inertial reference frame. So we really need to move this article into the present day, not only in the technical details in the lower paragraphs but also in the first paragraph.--PhysicsIsh (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblical references section

This section, particularly with this recent edit, is much too long, and entails too much OR (and/or is unsourced) and POV ("Geocentrists tend to be careless or sloppy", "The problem with this interpretation, is ..."). Somebody needs to come through with a machete. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. New014 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree also It reeks of being written by biblical apologists who are desperate to explain away passages that very clearly would imply geocentrism when taken literaly. If they take the bible literally enough to deny evolution and to believe the earth is only a few thousands of years old than they should really except that applying the same literalism would imply a geocentric universe.--Myron Mumbles (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Forms of modern geocentrism

This section is rather weak on saying who believes which form.

What exactly does Gerardus Bouw, for example, espouse? It sometimes sounds like he agrees with mainstream scientists that neither geocentricity nor acentricity is falsifiable. If that is the case, then we would need to add another subsection for that "Form of modern geocentrism". If there is a significant number of modern geocentrists that accept modern cosmology, in particular regarding the size of the universe, would we then need to mention the problem that events we observe billions of light years away must have happened billions of years ago? (This does not contradict geocentrism per se, but does contradict the usually concurrent belief in a young Earth.)

User:Mroam helpfully found a reference (here) for the category "Geocentrism based on a radically different cosmology". But it makes me wonder if this source and this form of modern geocentrism are notable. Does Marshall Hall have any following?

Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel Star of the Unborn

AnonMoos proposed this edit:

In Franz Werfel's science-fiction novel Star of the Unborn, it is said that future science will have determined that Earth has a special status as the "Infinitely Mobile Central Point of All Conceivable Orbits".

He makes the same proposal about once a year. I first removed it with the edit summary "Removed reference to fiction that doesn't fit in well with the rest of the article", which I still stand by. I am reverting the change again, but am welcome to listen to the arguments of any editors who think it belongs here (or hear support from those who don't). --Art Carlson (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it doesn't belong in the article. Doug Weller (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Astrology

... is for some reason entirely missing from the article, even though geocentrism is one of it's main foundations. Lunus (talk) 01:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? (I thought astrology was not rational enough to have any foundations.) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Joachim Winkelmann - Geheimnis der Talismane und Amulette, Dr. Musallam (Franz Sättler) - Astrologie. Then there's a few sources in Horoscope and Astrology. All of these use geocentrism as the base of astrology - some of them view it as entirely equal to heliocentrism (among them the two books I've listed), others limit it to astrology. I know of no modern sources that hold it to be superior to heliocentrism for general use, though, so I'm not quite sure whether to include it in the article. Lunus (talk) 01:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. I suspect that WP:WEIGHT arguments will prevent more than a brief mention of astrology, but that mention might improve the completeness of the coverage and suggest further connections to the interested reader. Can you say anything about the prominence of these two authors within astrology? (There are probably more books on astrology on the market than sand on the beach.) When were they published? Do they consider it incidental, since you only need the relative positions of the planets and fixed stars to calculate a horoscope, or do they consider it important and deep? A Google search on "geocentrism astrology" gave me 112,000 hits, so there might be something there. (Or is a mere 112,000 as good as zero nowadays?) --Art Carlson (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The relativistic falsification of geostatism and geocentrism

In its section 'Non-falsifiability of geocentrism' the article currently claims:

"If general relativity is true, then there exists a non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile center of a non-inertial universe (see equivalence principle). There also exists a reference frame (inertial or non-inertial) for any other arbitrary choice of coordinate systems. This means that strictly speaking, a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen, nor can a preferred coordinate system be rejected on the grounds of physics alone."

However, whilst a preferred coordinate system cannot be chosen nor rejected on the grounds of kinematics alone, contrary to the article's claim that according to GTR 'a preferred coordinate system cannot be rejected on the grounds of physics alone', the 'non-inertial reference frame where the Earth is the immobile centre of a non-inertial universe' can and must be rejected on the grounds of relativity physics alone. This is because in that frame in which all the stars orbit the Earth daily, then except for the Sun, they would all exceed the speed of light in their daily orbit. For example, even the very nearest star (system), Alpha Centauri, must travel almost 10,000 times faster than light in that frame. Hence that particular reference frame must be rejected solely on the basis of the postulate of relativity physics that nothing can possibly travel faster than light. (And thus it would also seem that SR and GTR are mutually inconsistent. If GTR is true then SR is false, and vice versa)

In addition to ruling out geostatic reference frames, relativity theory also rules out geocentric frames since their attribution of 6 monthly stellar parallax to stellar motion rather than to Earth's annual solar orbit also entails that motion must exceed the speed of light.

Consequently the Wikipedia claim made is FALSE !

And it is also UNSOURCED. I therefore flag it to request the provision of 'reliable' sources that verify this patently mistaken claim. --Logicus (talk) 13:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You've got the physics wrong, but I agree a good reference at this point would be helpful. --Art Carlson (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Please explain why you think I got the physics wrong. And especially note the article also claims: "Similarly, [in geocentrism] Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours." Do you also claim that gets the physics wrong ? --Logicus (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article also claims "A belief commonly associated with [modern geocentrism] is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate. (Similarly, Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours.)"

So surely on your analysis this unsourced claim about Neptune, and implicitly also about the stars, must also be mistaken ?

I therefore flag them to request sources for these Wikipedia claims. Can you provide such ?--Logicus (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a trivial point, and I really wish we had some better sources to explain it. You might find it enlightening to look through the archives, especially Talk:Modern_geocentrism/archive3#As a scientific theory, is geocentrism meaningless or wrong? and the 3 sections following that. This was back when I was struggling with the concept myself. General relativity is not my specialty, but I have a Ph.D. in physics, so I do understand a bit. Also make sure you understand Mach's principle, frame dragging, and gravitomagnetism.

If a model of a phenomenon really is inconsistent with special relativity, then it is possible to formulate a paradox that violates causality, for example, by sending information faster than light and therefore, is some frame of reference, into the past. In the case of planets and stars rotating with superluminal velocity, this is not possible. It is analogous to the fact that due to the Big Bang, points in space sufficiently far apart are moving away from each other faster than light.

You are perfectly correct that these arguments invalidate the statement in the article about Neptune (which in addition doesn't fit where it was placed). I will delete it post haste.

--Art Carlson (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Whether or not their physics is mistaken, if you would be so kind as to bear with me, I am reverting your removal of the claims of modern geocentrism about reduced stellar and Neptune distances just because this is overhasty removal of their citation request flags. I suspect what the article really means to claim is that modern geocentrists do reduce their distances because they claim their superluminal speeds are ruled out by some posit of relativity theory that nothing can travel faster than light, whether or not they are mistaken in this view. Hence I think much more time should be allowed to give people the opportunity to provide a source in the modern geocentrist literature for this claim. It is surely of interest whether they do claim such, irrespective of whether their physics is mistaken.

As for your attempts to explain why the physics is mistaken in your view, I’m afraid I find it unilluminating, as I also found the archive section you kindly referred me to.

In the first instance rather than trying to teach me physics, could you please perhaps just start by saying simply whether you think GTR permits or rules out reference frames in which some objects travel faster than the speed of light ? Yes or No ? --Logicus (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were concerned that the article is inconsistent, but I have no problem leaving as is for a while. It might help our dialog if you could tell me a little about your background. Interested layman? Bachelors degree in another science? Graduate degree in physics? Does GTR permit reference frames in which some objects travel faster than the speed of light? Yes. --Art Carlson (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I found a reference to back up my Big Bang example. Article Faster-than-light#Universal expansion states "The expansion of the universe causes distant galaxies to recede from us faster than the speed of light, .... 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". The source given is this, which states "With the correct interpretation of the variables, the Hubble law (v = HD) is true for all values of D, even very large ones which give v > c." The source (which is without a doubt reliable) goes on to explain in detail what the "correct interpretation" is. The physics is not easy to follow, so for our purposes we will have to be content with the conclusion of the expert. I'll try to find an equally good source for the statement about rotating coordinate systems. One thing you might think about, the local inertial reference frame near a rotating body rotates a little bit with that body due to frame dragging. Consequently, the "problem" with distant objects moving faster than light is not limited to the geostationary reference frame, but also to the inertial reference frame near the Earth. --Art Carlson (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Art Carlson: Thanks for this. But was it not you who introduced this stuff about the stars and Neptune being nearer on 17 December 2004 ? Also see 'Nashpur to Logicus' comments on my User Talk:Logicus page. More later when I digest this....--Logicus (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I added the stuff about the stars (a pity I didn't note my sources at the time), but somebody else put in the Neptune business. --Art Carlson (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to Carlson: Thanks. So does that mean you found some modern geocentrist source that regarded the geostatic frame as refuted by some relativity theory ban on superluminal speed, and so removed this refutation by making the stars much closer, preumably not much further than Uranus ? Is this what that sentence means in effect ?--Logicus (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's what I read or meant to imply. I think the motivation for these geocentrists is much less subtle and is more like an attraction to an archaic world model, but I never really understood where it came from. Even without the relativity argument under discussion, YECs have a problem with the size of of the universe. The observation of a supernova more than 6000 light years away would imply that God created light waves suggesting an event that never occurred (Omphalos hypothesis). --Art Carlson (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus: Thanks. In relation to the issue of whether geostatism is ruled out by GTR, my posting on the Talk:Faster-than-light page today - A counter-example to GR ? - may interest you, as may Nashpur's analogous point about comets made in the article itself yesterday. --Logicus (talk) 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ To the above, the math is pretty close. Proxima Centauri would have to travel 9,600 times the speed of light to orbit the earth (4.218 ly away) in 24 hours. --King Öomie 18:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anachronism

The current text of the article says, "Paul V ... ratified ... 1633 ...condemation of Galileo ...". Pope Paul V died in 1621 and cannot have ratified anything produced in 1633. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.173.23 (talk) 11:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Relativity

The theory of the above says that both the Earth and the Sun have no privileged status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.171 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC) Dougweller and Aunt Entropy remove any reference to the theory of relativity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.33.171 (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm at a loss as to what you're talking about. --King Öomie 12:46, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Geocentrism most common among American Protestants?

“This belief is often based on Biblical verses and is most common among American Protestants.”

I believe that this claim found in the first paragraph of the article should be cited. If it can’t, then it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.162.199 (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

On a similar thread the Gallup poll line is out of context. "Polls conducted by Gallup in the 1990s have found that 16% of Germans, 18% of Americans and 19% of Britons hold that the Sun revolves around the Earth." The source only indicates one poll, not polls. it was done in 1999 and it did not test that the respondents "hold" that the sun orbits the earth, just that they responded as such. They were testing for general knowledge rather than asking if it is a held belief. --98.204.178.238 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

Phrasing of intro suggests "Americans are stupid" POV

"In a poll conducted by Gallup in 1999, 18% of Americans said that they believe the Sun orbits the Earth. In two polls conducted in 1996, 16% of Germans,and 19% of Britons responded that they also believe the Sun orbits the Earth.[1]"

This would be better phrased as a single sentence, I think, in descending order of population percentage (19% of Britons, 18% of Americans, 16% of Germans), to avoid any implication that one of the countries in particular is less educated than others. Agreed? 98.217.75.153 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see what the figure was elsewhere, say in Nigeria, Egypt, Pakistan, and China. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent newspaper article

"A few Catholics still insist Galileo was wrong" by Manya A. Brachear, Chicago Tribune August 27, 2011 -- AnonMoos (talk) 15:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I find this whole article suspect

I've never met a proponent of geocentrism in my life, including in fundamentalist churches, and yet this article makes it sound downright COMMON. It contains almost no quotes from any individuals who actually seem to have any following, and trying to get a handle on how big of a phenomenon this is is almost impossible from the article. Carlo (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2011 (UTC)