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

[Loudmouth]

The movement of the sun would produce the same stellar parallax.

No it wouldn't. No matter how the sun moved it would not cause near-by stars to move in relation to more distant stars.

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.

All you have to do is switch the Earth and Sun in your diagram. Notice that the star would remain stationary above the middle object as the outer object orbits around it.

 

[[serious]]

so, if we independantly measure parallax with a space probe, I assume you acknowledge that would completely destroy your argument about stars moving. If not, it would require the stars to be in to different locations at the same time.

 

[Phred]

You're seriously suggesting that the sun is orbiting the earth. Are you also suggesting the sun is smaller than the earth? Because that can't happen and still sustain a viable nuclear reaction. If the sun is larger than the earth then it isn't going to orbit the earth. The momentum of an object larger than the earth 93 million miles away is going to take it right on by the earth, not in a circular path around it. This little drawing you've got is cute an all but there's a huge problem with it... the SUN WOULDN'T BE THERE. It would have moved off on a straight trajectory unaffected by the meager gravity of the earth.

 

[RichardT]

You're seriously suggesting that the sun is orbiting the earth. Are you also suggesting the sun is smaller than the earth? Because that can't happen and still sustain a viable nuclear reaction. If the sun is larger than the earth then it isn't going to orbit the earth. The momentum of an object larger than the earth 93 million miles away is going to take it right on by the earth, not in a circular path around it. This little drawing you've got is cute an all but there's a huge problem with it... the SUN WOULDN'T BE THERE. It would have moved off on a straight trajectory unaffected by the meager gravity of the earth.

So again, someone else completely does not understand my position or my argument. I WOULD REJECT GEOCENTRICITY IF I HAD TO RATIONALIZE HOW GRAVITATION WOULD PULL THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH. Thankfully I do NOT do that.

 

[Phred]

So again, someone else completely does not understand my position or my argument. I WOULD REJECT GEOCENTRICITY IF I HAD TO RATIONALIZE HOW GRAVITATION WOULD PULL THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH. Thankfully I do NOT do that.

You have to reject geocentricity. The sun does not orbit the earth. No matter what you conveniently decide to rationalize or not. Thankfully, I do take into account all the evidence. The earth orbits the sun. End of subject.

 

[Atheuz]

So again, someone else completely does not understand my position or my argument. I WOULD REJECT GEOCENTRICITY IF I HAD TO RATIONALIZE HOW GRAVITATION WOULD PULL THE SUN AROUND THE EARTH. Thankfully I do NOT do that.

Basically it's not based on rationality - Just blind faith and believing he's something special.

 

[Phred]

Basically it's not based on rationality - Just blind faith and believing he's something special.

"special" as in short bus or "special" as in wears a helmet all the time just because?

 

[Atheuz]

"special" as in short bus or "special" as in wears a helmet all the time just because?

"special" as in being the pinnacle of God's creation, being the center of everything, thinking everything revolves around you.

Yours works too, it's a lot funner at least ;P

 

[RichardT]

The earth orbits the sun. End of subject.

Using what reference frame?

 

[RichardT]

All you have to do is switch the Earth and Sun in your diagram. Notice that the star would remain stationary above the middle object as the outer object orbits around it.

Actually, I would also have to move the stars with the sun, I couldn't just change the position of the earth and the sun.

 

[Loudmouth]

Actually, I would also have to move the stars with the sun, I couldn't just change the position of the earth and the sun.

Move which stars with the Sun? Are they all glued to one another, or something?

Still, even if you moved the stars along with the Sun it still wouldn't produce stellar parallax over the span of six months. The star would remain motionless with relation to other stars.

If you don't like switching the Earth and the Sun, then make the Sun move and the Earth in the model. Let's say that Earth is always in position 1 in the diagram and the Sun moves about it in a circle. If this is the case then you will always observe the star in position B. You will never observe the star in position A because the Earth would have to move to position 2 in order for this to happen.

 

[Phred]

Using what reference frame?

Using any reference frame.

 

[RichardT]

I can't draw so I copied and pasted images from a couple of the original images and drew lines to make this. I wrote earlier that I made a tiny mistake, but it isn't a mistake as long as we know that this is not to scale, the stars may be hundreds of light years away.

This is why the Modified Tycho Brahe System works.

STELLAR PARALLAX WITHIN THE MODIFIED TYCHO BRAHE GEOCENTRIC SYSTEM

STELLAR PARALLAX WITHIN THE MODERN HELIOCENTRIC VIEW

 

[TheOutsider]

I'm not very good at drawing pictures, so just imagine me posting a pic of square peg being forced into a round hole. That's about as useful as all of Richard's pictures.

 

[NailsII]

I'm not very good at drawing pictures, so just imagine me posting a pic of square peg being forced into a round hole. That's about as useful as all of Richard's pictures.

*s[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]s*

 

[NailsII]

?!?!?!?
Is there another word I can use for 'laugh' which gets automatically edited by the system?

 

[RichardT]

Using any reference frame.

Can you look from outside of the universe?

 

[RichardT]

?!?!?!?
Is there another word I can use for 'laugh' which gets automatically edited by the system?

Why laugh? I'm serious. Point out any error in logic.

 

[NailsII]

RichardT - you are obviously a very gifted debator an and educated individual, and because of this I would like to ask you one question.
Why would the earth be in the centre of the galaxy/universe - centre of anything, for that matter!!!
If, as you claim, we were created by god in his image, would he put us in the centre of anything?
Is he more likely to place us on an average planet, in a nondescrpit orbit around an average star?
I don't understand the significance of any of this.
There is no logic to us being in the middle.
That would only be a man-made priority, in my humble opinion anyway.

My question remains unanswered.
For someone who puts all their faith in logic (and scripture) this should be easy.
What is so special about being in the centre anything?
If god put so much importance in the centre of everything, why do we live on the surface of the earth?
Why is our brain not in the middle of our bodies?
Please, using logic (and not scripture) reason with me and tell me why the centre of anything is special.

 

[NailsII]

Why laugh? I'm serious. Point out any error in logic.

I was merely laughing at the outsider's analogy of square and round to describe uselfulness.
I think the picture explains pretty much everything you have said so far, except I think it needs BS in big capitals in one corner.