Against Heliocentrism : Wolfgang Smith

I shared

quote

"If the Airy or Michelson-Morley experiments had yielded their intended result, the scientific case against geocentrism, though still not compelling, would at least have been impressive; however, as the matter stands, the ancient doctrine was not even rendered improbable, let alone has it been disqualified."
-Wolfgang Smith

presentation

Wolfgang Smith (born 1930) is a mathematician, physicist, philosopher of science, metaphysician, Roman Catholic and member of the Traditionalist School. He has written extensively in the field of differential geometry, as a critic of scientism and as a proponent of a new interpretation of quantum mechanics that draws heavily from medieval ontology and realism.

Two

threads arise with William P. Lazarus.

i

William P. Lazarus

He was also wrong. The Michelson-Morley experiments conclusively disproved theories about light and space and opened the door to modern -- scientifically supported -- understanding of the universe.

Mil Sneler

[William P. Lazarus] What?

William P. Lazarus

What what? The comment said if Michelson-Morley experiment had yielded their intended result -- the experiment did and won a Nobel Prize because of it. The ancient doctrine has been rendered wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What exact "ancient doctrine"?

Geocentrism? No.

Heliocentrism + luminiferous aether, a somewhat less ancient doctrine.

[William P. Lazarus], you seem somewhat sloppy at history of ideas ....

William P. Lazarus

No, I am not. But thanks for once again defining me. I don't subscribe to your outdated and nonscientific concepts that you continue to promote. That doesn't make me sloppy; it makes me informed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sloppy people like pretending to be informed by going along with a majority of those who are considered informed and by avoiding like the plague to actually get into details about the arguments involved.

I am at the opposite end, a nerd who actually pays attention to arguments, and as a result once in a while take up a controversial and "outdated" view.

B U T, let's skip characterising each other and get into argument.

If you swim upstreams and downstreams in a stream of water, and do same length at same speed, the logical conclusion is, there is no stream.

This is what one of them discussed at breakfast table with a very young daughter. EITHER there is no aether (no water, so no stream) OR it is not moved in relation to earth (no movement, so no stream). That's why light beams (corresponding to swimmer in analogy) from east to west and from west to east at same hour arrived at equal speeds.

Or even worse : there was a difference corresponding to the daily rotation of whatever daily rotates, but there was none for the speed of earth through solar system, which is supposed to be much greater.

Of the two possible conclusions, they settled for the wrong one, denying the aether. B U T, not without mentioning in passing the right one, and also not without refuting earlier ways in which it was replaced and making its replacement more convoluted (light as waves with no aether in which the waves are ripples is convoluted).

That geocentrism was wrong was neither proven, nor discussed, after the experiments. It was assumed. One tacitly forgot this is what Michelson and Morley had tried to find a proof for, and valorised as discovery the other possible interpretation of their finding.

"I guess that if you could repeat the MM experiment on Mars, it would also show that Mars is "stationary", but we know that it is in relative motion to the earth. I guess no one has done that experiment on Mars though."

"That's correct - or even the Moon. You get the result because the speed of light is the same for all observers."

Source PhysicsForums : Michelson Morley experiment and heliocentrism
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/michelson-morley-experiment-and-heliocentrism.626672/

This has obviously not been tested.

"1- Stellar aberration. 2- Stellar parallax. 3- The Doppler Effect. 4- Retrograde motion of planets. 5- Phases of Venus.

Source PhysicsForums : Michelson Morley experiment and heliocentrism
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/michelson-morley-experiment-and-heliocentrism.626672/

Aberration and parallax can be accounted for by stars moved by angels, for aesthetic purposes.

Doppler effect is irrelevant, it's about widening of the universe.

Retrogrades and phases of Venus were answered to Galileo as per Tychonian orbits.

Obviously, the guy did NOT (and very wisely not) try to argue Michelson Morley had added another proof to Heliocentrism.

William P. Lazarus

No kidding. They were proving the world wasn't bathed in ether. I went to Case Western, where the experiment took place. As for heliocentrism, that argument ended centuries ago. Ptolemy was wrong; Copernicus was right. Arguing a proven fact is kind of silly, isn't it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

They were proving a *heliocentric* world isn't bathed in ether.

Ptolemy and Copernicus were both wrong, observations are compatible with Tycho Brahe and Riccioli, and reflect reality more directly than with Newton's and Kepler's and Bruno's cosmology.

ij

William P. Lazarus

Nonsense. You cannot overturn direct observations by Hubble and o9ther telescopes, as well as ce3nturies of research, to match your narrow religious views. Stop wasting your time trying to "prove" your beliefs.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, but I am again seeing a certain relationship between you and Dunning and Kruger.

Hubble and other telescopes have made no direct observations of heliocentrism.

Do check exactly what it is they have directly observed, then come back and argue how that supports heliocentrism.