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

[Blayz]

Oh. That is true. Sorry, I'm reading this wrong. Post 139 is your post. It takes about 10 days in the Geocentric system.

Yes that makes sense.

LMAO

Each spiral is actually about ten days, so the figure shows a year of 36 days.

His figure is an abbreviation. He didn't want to put 365 spirals in it so he reduced it to 36, with each one representing 10 days.

Here is what you have done Richard, you have taken the abbreviation Bouw used as an example and turned it into some kind of Geocentric rule of 10 days.

I think it is possible you actually know less about this model than you did when you started.

 

[LeeC]

WOW... I wish my son could draw like that - but he is only 2.

Although he would use more colour, it would be just as meaningless.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

These are the motions of the Modified Tycho Brahe System.

You know RichardT, Johannes Kepler used Tycho Brache data - the measurements for the motion of Mars.

From this Kepler "modified" both Tycho Brahe model and Copernicus (which was along the right tracks – Sun centred, but Copernicus still wanted circular orbits)...

It answers all the observations seen, and Newton (then Einstein) explains how it works.

What you have provided is a complex "joke" that fails to answer all the observations and certainly does NOT have an explanation how it might work.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

If the sun were to be carried around the earth, you can visualize how stellar parallax would work in the system. I feel stupid for not seeing it before.

"sun were to be carried around the earth"

HOW?

Would not the mass of the Sun pull the Earth? This is basic Newtonian theory of Gravity isn't it? So what stops this happening?

"you can visualize how stellar parallax would work in the system"

If you plug your brain into the Matrix supercomputer then you can visualize anything you like.

Of course, I would need to explain HOW I made this supercomputer, and HOW I plugged you into it, and HOW you did not notice... All possible - I just need to explain - HOW and WHY in this case?

"I feel stupid for not seeing it before."

When you grow up and think for yourself - you will feel very stupid indeed.

I do not have the baggage you have – you are tying yourself in knots to explain something that for 400 years has been agreed as the most logical solution. Not only that – it has been measured and proven correct.

You are trying to have your solution (the bible) and fix reality to it. (It fails)

It is far better to have reality (that which can be measured) and fix your solution to match it.
(This is astronomy BTW – it started with Kelper with Tycho Brache data).

All you have to say is that the Bible is wrong on this matter - most Christians have done just this.

Lee

 

[RichardT]

Someone cannot be stupid enough to believe what you claim to believe in real life.

I am!

 

[RichardT]

WOW... I wish my son could draw like that - but he is only 2.

Although he would use more colour, it would be just as meaningless.

Lee

I think it looks more awesome in black and white, I do think it's meaningful because it shows us the observed motions of the sun.

 

[RichardT]

"sun were to be carried around the earth"

HOW?

Would not the mass of the Sun pull the Earth? This is basic Newtonian theory of Gravity isn't it? So what stops this happening?

The mass of the sun is supposed to pull the earth. That's why Geocentrists say that when looking from the sun's reference frame, the earth must LOOK like it's orbiting the sun, but the absolute motions of the universe are not actually like this. I mean, how else would we send people to the moon?

"you can visualize how stellar parallax would work in the system"

If you plug your brain into the Matrix supercomputer then you can visualize anything you like.

Correct.

Of course, I would need to explain HOW I made this supercomputer, and HOW I plugged you into it, and HOW you did not notice... All possible - I just need to explain - HOW and WHY in this case?

If the ether were to carry the sun in the path laid out before, you could see how stellar parallax would work in the system.

 

[[serious]]

Rich, I think at this point I'm just going to encourage you to take a bunch of physics courses. As you learn more about the subject you will likely abandon many of these ideas.

 

[RichardT]

Rich, I think at this point I'm just going to encourage you to take a bunch of physics courses. As you learn more about the subject you will likely abandon many of these ideas.

I don't see why. Dr. Bouw has a Ph.D in astronomy and is still a Geocentrist. If I took physics courses I would still try to rationalize this.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

How do you reconcile that the heliocentric model works through applications such as space probes and such where the relative position of objects within and outside the solar system need to be known? These applications cannot be compatible with the geocentric model.

 

[RichardT]

How do you reconcile that the heliocentric model works through applications such as space probes and such where the relative position of objects within and outside the solar system need to be known?

It is mathematically and physically tractable because the laws of gravitation and relativity must seemingly be fulfilled.

Here are some more papers that prove that it is tractable. I found these on Bouw's website, I do not have them myself but if you can find them some where, feel free to read them.

Gerber, Paul, 1898. Zeitschrift für mathematik physik, 43:93.
Thirring, Hans, 1918. Physikalische Zeitschrift, 19:23.
Lense, J., and H. Thirring, 1918. Ibid., p. 156.
Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
Birkhoff, G. D., 1944. Boletin de la Sociedad Mathematica Mexicana, 1:1.
Brown, G. B., 1955. Proc. Of the Phys. Soc., B, 68: 672.
Moon, P. and D. E. Spenser, 1959. Philos. Of Science, 26:125.
Nightingale, J. D., 1977. Am. Jrn. of Phys., 45:376.
Rosser, W., 1964. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.
Barbour, J. B. and B. Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento, 38B(1):1.
Browne, P. F., 1977. Jrnl. of Phys. A: Math & Gen., 10:727.
Mach, E., 1883. Die Mechanik in Ihrer entwicklung Historisch-Kritisch Dargestellt, (Prague).
Gödel, K., 1952. Proc. Of the International Congrs. of Math., 1:175.

 

[lemmings]

It is mathematically and physically tractable

You have still not provided a reason as to why the sun wobbles when it orbits around the Earth therefore you can not say this.

Don’t you see that there is a very big difference between these two orbits? If the Earth’s satellites behaved like the sun, satellite communication would have been impossible since the object would constantly be moving out of the dish’s line of sight. Even if we adjusted the dishes to the orbit, areas like the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle would enter a communications blackout every single year.

 

[[serious]]

I don't see why. Dr. Bouw has a Ph.D in astronomy and is still a Geocentrist. If I took physics courses I would still try to rationalize this.

Yeah, but it gets much more difficult to rationalize it as you learn more. There are always some people who can maintain enough cognitive dissonance to fit whatever preconceived notion into any facts that would refute it, but they are few and far between.

 

[Loudmouth]

Ether

What ether? Evidence please.

Also, please explain why the ether moves such a small percentage of stars.

It works as long as the stars are focused on the sun.

What the heck does this mean? Stellar parallax works because of a difference in distance between the background stars and the foreground stars. It has nothing to do with the Sun, other than the Earth orbitting around the much more massive Sun.

You mean to tell me that you didn't understand this from the beginning? Of course this is how my system works!

It doesn't work, Richie.

Geocentricity works! It only seems to be absurd because it seems to be more complicated.

It's absurd because it requires the existence of an unevidence plenum ether. It's absurd because it has a much more massive object moving about a much less massive object. It's absurd because it conflicts with everything we know about physics. That's why it's absurd.

"According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable."

-- Albert Einstein

You should have included the context of the quote:

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."--Albert Einstein

I emphasized the last sentence. You might want to reread that section a few times.

These statements were made in 1920. In that same lecture Einstein stated:

" The next position which it was possible to take up in face of this state of things appeared to be the following. The ether does not exist at all. The electromagnetic fields are not states of a medium, and are not bound down to any bearer, but they are independent realities which are not reducible to anything else, exactly like the atoms of ponderable matter. This conception suggests itself the more readily as, according to Lorentz's theory, electromagnetic radiation, like ponderable matter, brings impulse and energy with it, and as, according to the special theory of relativity, both matter and radiation are but special forms of distributed energy, ponderable mass losing its isolation and appearing as a special form of energy. "

I would suggest that you read the entire lecture here. It discusses how property after porperty of the luminferous ether was stripped away to the point that the only property that the ether had was " . . .immobility . . . the only mechanical property of which it has not been deprived by H A Lorentz."

 

[RichardT]

Don’t you see that there is a very big difference between these two orbits? If the Earth’s satellites behaved like the sun, satellite communication would have been impossible since the object would constantly be moving out of the dish’s line of sight. Even if we adjusted the dishes to the orbit, areas like the Arctic Circle and Antarctic Circle would enter a communications blackout every single year.

Yes I understand. Again, it's irrelevant because the motion of the sun is not like an orbit.

It is generally believed, without evidence, that in the geocentric
model the sun, moon, planets, and distant stars all orbit the earth
once per day. There is no orbiting involved. What is happening is
that the firmament is rotating. Now the nature of the firmament is
such that it defines all the physics of the universe, both the local and
the universal, protophysics (Chapter 11, page 116). This means
that all the “laws” of physics are part and parcel of the firmament
and that the firmament acts like a medium for the laws of science.
So it is that in a geocentric model the sun, moon, and stars do not
gravitationally orbit the earth daily any more than that a molecule in
a top gravitationally orbits the center of the top. In the case of the
spinning top it is the fibers and material of the top which carry the
molecules around the axis of the top. By the same token, in the
geocentric model it is the fabric of the firmament which carries the
universe about it.

 

[RichardT]

What the heck does this mean? Stellar parallax works because of a difference in distance between the background stars and the foreground stars. It has nothing to do with the Sun, other than the Earth orbitting around the much more massive Sun.

Of course it has to do with the sun, because the earth is supposed to seemingly orbit the sun.

It's absurd because it requires the existence of an unevidence plenum ether. It's absurd because it has a much more massive object moving about a much less massive object. It's absurd because it conflicts with everything we know about physics. That's why it's absurd.

It only seems absurd because we aren't used to it. It seemed absurd to me at first as well but I know that back when the Tychonic system and Copernican system were equally accepted, there was actually no evidence for the Copernican. Every single one of Galileo's supposed proofs are either wrong or only falsify the Ptolemaic. They were both equal coordinate systems which correctly described the observed motions of the universe at the time.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it has to do with the sun, because the earth is supposed to seemingly orbit the sun.

How does this image relate to stellar parallax? What you are illustrating is SOLAR parallax, not stellar parallax.

Stellar parallax is the movement of one star compared to another.

It only seems absurd because we aren't used to it.

It's absurd because there is no evidence for a plenum ether. Your model requires this non-existent ether to move some stars and hold others still. This is absurd.

Again, in my thumb experiment what causes your thumb to move WITH RELATION TO OBJECTS FARTHER AWAY? It is not the plenum ether.

 

[RichardT]

How does this image relate to stellar parallax? What you are illustrating is SOLAR parallax, not stellar parallax.

Stellar parallax is the movement of on star compared to another.

Whoops. Wrong image.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course it has to do with the sun, because the earth is supposed to seemingly orbit the sun.

So you agree that stellar parallax is caused by the Earth moving about the Sun?

Even then, a spaceship in space that moved in a circle equivalent to the Earth' orbit would witness the same effect. It is the movement of the Earth, regardless of what moves it, that produces stellar parallax.

In your image, if you remove the angle theta and the perpendicular coming up from the Sun you still get images A and B.

 

[RichardT]

So you agree that stellar parallax is caused by the Earth moving about the Sun?

vice-versa.

Even then, a spaceship in space that moved in a circle equivalent to the Earth' orbit would witness the same effect. It is the movement of the Earth, regardless of what moves it, that produces stellar parallax.

The movement of the sun would produce the same stellar parallax. You can see how it would work in the image. If you want, I'll try to create a geometrically sound geocentric framework for the parallax of the stars. It might take me some time though.