No Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

[RichardT]

You think maybe his mommy grounded him?

My "mommy" doesn't "ground" me. I'm almost an adult.

 

[RichardT]

How do you explain the Parallax of "near by" stars?

I will explain it by the Earth moving around the sun.

Do you agree?

Lee

Yes I agree that you can explain the parallax of nearby stars this way.

(I have to get back to school now, I will have to get back to you later on your other question, although I have answered it numerous times)

 

[RichardT]

From now on, the one square mile of kenilworth will be the center of the universe. This is based on scientific knowledge from 2422 BC and measurments taken by cutting open tress and counting their rings, so it must be true. Also, Kenilworth is the center of the universe because i said so and no one will ever convince me otherwise.

Hey look everyone, it's the evilutionist thought police.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes I agree that you can explain the parallax of nearby stars this way.

How is it explained in a geocentric model?

 

[RichardT]

How is it explained in a geocentric model?

I don't really know yet, this is why I'm trying to acquire this information from various sources.

 

[[serious]]

Rich, I would still like some acknowledgment that you have read my posts and now understand that changing inertial reference frames do not change acceleration to include rotation and orbit. Just a simple "I understand" will satisfy me.

 

[lemmings]

I don't really know yet, this is why I'm trying to acquire this information from various sources.

Perhaps you could also try verifying that your sources are not telling outright lies as well.

Click me

 

[RichardT]

Rich, I would still like some acknowledgment that you have read my posts and now understand that changing inertial reference frames do not change acceleration to include rotation and orbit. Just a simple "I understand" will satisfy me.

I believe that the earth doesn't move. (except in the case of earthquakes, although there are some studies that might change my mind about this)

 

[LeeC]

Retrograde motion.

Sorry - I'll be sad now... retrograde motion does not on it's own prove a sun centric model - Silly though retrograde motion is - they answered this by the planets making extra little circles in their motion... weird stuff - but it actually works as a model and you can make predictions with it.

However the model can be falsified.

The phases of Venus was the first evidence against the Earth centred model. The death nail (although all believed it by the time it could be measured) was the parallax of the near-by stars.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

I don't really know yet, this is why I'm trying to acquire this information from various sources.

I look forward to reading it... I really, really do.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

I believe that the earth doesn't move. (except in the case of earthquakes, although there are some studies that might change my mind about this)

Doesn't move in space?
So you do not think the Earth even rotates - all the stars move around us?

WOW - you have some belief... you say you go to school? What are they teaching you in science class?

Lee

 

[LeeC]

Perhaps you could also try verifying that your sources are not telling outright lies as well.

I thought that was our job?

Lee

 

[lemmings]

I believe that the earth doesn't move. (except in the case of earthquakes, although there are some studies that might change my mind about this)

How do you deal with Foucault's pendulum?

 

[RichardT]

How do you deal with Foucault's pendulum?

Moving universe causes the pendulum to swing. As long as there's a force moving against the pendulum, it will move.

 

[RichardT]

Doesn't move in space?
So you do not think the Earth even rotates - all the stars move around us?

WOW - you have some belief... you say you go to school? What are they teaching you in science class?

Lee

Please don't blame my science teachers, I would have to be all to blame.

 

[lemmings]

I thought that was our job?

Lee

It should be everyone’s job.

I've noticed RT hasn't responded yet to post #26.

 

[lemmings]

Moving universe causes the pendulum to swing. As long as there's a force moving against the pendulum, it will move.

Why doesn’t this force act upon the rest of the Earth then?

A boat, even if it has no power, will still move as long as there is a current flowing around it.

 

[RichardT]

Lee, I believe in gravitation and relativity, but that they are relative forces, just like how Fred Hoyle concluded,

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." (1975)

I'll have to get back to you on stellar parallax, although I'm sure that it's probably really not a problem.

The Yearly Motion

An oft-asked question is how the seasons are described in a geocentric framework. Much the same as in the heliocentric model.The key to understanding the geocentric approach is to understand that in the course of a year we reckon 365 days (366 if a leap year).
During that time the stars are seen to rotate about the earth 366 times (367 if a leap year). In addition, the sun travels in a north south pattern in the course of a year, resulting in a spiral motion when viewed from the earth or the outside of the universe (Figure11). On the first day of summer (called the summer solstice), the sun is as far north as it is going to go; and on the first day of winter (winter solstice), the sun reaches its southernmost point. The first days of spring and fall mark the times that the sun crosses the equator. Geocentricity allows the sun that north-south motion as it is carried by the firmament in a north-south motion due to either irregularities in how the matter is distributed throughout the universe or else to forces imposed from outside the universe. Figure 11b shows the seasons from a geocentric perspective. Figure 9, pg. 117, illustrates the wobble in the universe which describes the yearly motion of the sun, planets, and stars about the earth. It is important to the understanding of the model that one realize that the yearly motion is not a rotation but a to-and-fro motion which describes an elliptical path the size and shape of the earth-sun “orbit,” the circle about the earth on which the sun is located, see Fig. 9. All the planets and stars participate in that motion, including the laws of physics because the motion is an inherent property of the firmament. The result is that parallax, aberration, the annual Doppler shift, precession of the equinoxes, and perihelion precession are all accounted for by the model.

 

[FundieBasher]

I believe that the earth doesn't move. (except in the case of earthquakes, although there are some studies that might change my mind about this)

If you define the earth as the reference point, than of course it doesn't move. You could use the same logic to suggest that my cat's left nostril defines the center of the universe. And of course you can come up with a way to model the way motions occur from any reference point. However, the necessary model becomes less complex if you pick a useful reference point, such as THE SUN'S CENTER OF MASS when dealing with the motion of objects in our solar system. That makes the heliocentric point of view demonstrably better. Just because you can make a model for something a certain way, doesn't make it the best one. This is why one never sees equations in (Y/6)-0=7823474/(16 MX+B) form.

 

[LeeC]

How do you deal with Foucault's pendulum?

Little demons in the joints where the pendulum connects to the ceiling...

It's all done with mirrors?

It's mechanical so maybe it is just friction or something? Wind in the room... convention currents - that’s it!!


For a scientist the Foucault's pendulum is pretty good evidence - yet you "could" make up some lies to explain it away if you tried.

Hence I stick to the parallax of nearby stars... "anyone" (with a big telescope) can measure it - you cannot explain it with a stationary Earth centric model.

Although RichardT says he can - so I look forward to it.

Lee