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

[RichardT]

No. Your system says that a complete cycle should take 24 hours. Is this really that hard to understand?

Parallax measurements are only made on the first day of summer and the first day of winter (Unless I'm wrong about the exact date?!). That's when it is taken in the Geocentric system, and it works exactly the same when it is taken at this time.

The sun travels in a helix around the earth in one day. That is correct.

Point out errors in logic.

 

[Blayz]

Parallax measurements are only made on the first day of summer and the first day of winter (Unless I'm wrong about the exact date?!).

It's not going to be any surprise, is it, when I tell you you are in fact wrong. All that is required is two days that are 6 months apart.

The sun travels in a helix around the earth in one day. That is correct.

And thus the parallax occurs over the sapce of one day...except it doesn't.

 

[RichardT]

It's not going to be any surprise, is it, when I tell you you are in fact wrong. All that is required is two days that are 6 months apart.

OK. So it should work in the Geocentric system as well for any 2 days 6 months apart. Yeah that should work.

And thus the parallax occurs over the sapce of one day...except it doesn't.

In order to measure the parallax of distant stars, they must be measured 6 months apart.

 

[lemmings]

OK. So it should work in the Geocentric system as well for any 2 days 6 months apart.

No, the stars return to the exact same position every 24 hours in a geocentric system.

 

[Phred]

Why laugh?

Because what you're saying is stupid and wrong. It violates physics in more than one area and is amazingly asinine. How do you finally own up to it? Magic ether created by an imaginary God.

I'm serious.

Which is why I laugh at you.

Point out any error in logic.

Your posts.

 

[RichardT]

No, the stars return to the exact same position every 24 hours in a geocentric system.

Yes. But as I've shown before, stellar parallax is the same in the heliocentric system and the geocentric system when measuring 6 months apart. Show me the error in my logic.

I can do the same thing for the 2nd day of winter and the second day of summer, and so on.

 

[lemmings]

Yes. But as I've shown before, stellar parallax is the same in the heliocentric system and the geocentric system when measuring 6 months apart. Show me the error in my logic.

I can do the same thing for the 2nd day of winter and the second day of summer, and so on.

Hint: If something returns to the same state every 24 hours, it will be in the same place 48 hours later and 4320 (24*180) hours later.

 

[lemmings]

It doesn’t mater what word I use, just answer the question. What force is capable of moving the sun 61,000,000km, stopping it, and then reversing? If you can not answer this then Geocentricism can not possibly work.

Bump!

 

[RichardT]

Because what you're saying is stupid and wrong. It violates physics in more than one area and is amazingly asinine. How do you finally own up to it? Magic ether created by an imaginary God.


Which is why I laugh at you.


Your posts.

Instead of laughing at me, why don't we discuss things that you disagree with in my position? I know that I should probably try to find a scientific basis for why I believe in the ether. The bible tells us that God created the firmament, the moon, stars etc... are all placed within the firmament. The archaic meaning of firmament is solid. A plenum ether would make sense.

 

[RichardT]

Hint: If something returns to the same state every 24 hours, it will be in the same place 48 hours later and 4320 (24*180) hours later.

Thank you for pointing this out. Now it really doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all.

 

[lemmings]

Thank you for pointing this out. Now it really doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all.

I’m glad that I could help you with that.

 

[LeeC]

Thank you for pointing this out. Now it really doesn't seem to make any sense to me at all.

Try placing the sun at the centre of the solar system, and have the Earth orbit around the sun (like all the other planets).

This model works - it has been measured, it has been observed. It has been explained.

It answers all the experiments taken - including stellar parallax, which surprise surprise – you are failing to answer with your Geocentric model.

Keep thinking though, and be open minded - be willing to change your original assumptions.

Follow the experimental evidence - why would your God want you to ignore the facts?

If the model does not fit reality - change the model, not reality (Only a God could do that).

Good luck.

Lee

 

[NailsII]

Yes, I understand that you believe that the Earth does not move.

OK. Then you must understand that the sun, and the stars which are focused on the sun, must move in order to produce the day/night cycle correct?

If the earth is stationary, how come we have magnetic poles?
I was under the impression that magnetism was induced by the rotation of the earth on the iron core.....

 

[Phred]

Instead of laughing at me, why don't we discuss things that you disagree with in my position? I know that I should probably try to find a scientific basis for why I believe in the ether.

No... trying to help you hone your nonsense isn't something that's interesting to me. You're hopelessly wrong, you're violating physics right and left.

The bible tells us that God created the firmament, the moon, stars etc... are all placed within the firmament. The archaic meaning of firmament is solid. A plenum ether would make sense.

The Bible is wrong. It doesn't matter what the Bible tells us as your first mistake is assuming it must be right.

 

[Maxwell511]

If the earth is stationary, how come we have magnetic poles?
I was under the impression that magnetism was induced by the rotation of the earth on the iron core.....

I think he has given up.

However if he hasn't I would more like an explanation of what is happening with geostationary satellites.

If they are not moving and the earth is not moving they are experiencing no external forces as per Newton's first law of motion. However if the relative (to the earth) velocity of the satelitte is changed to a certain value it will orbit the earth and when it returns to the original point will change velocity and therefore be shown to be experiencing a force at that point.

There are three resolutions to this apparent appearance and disappear of a force.

1. Forces appear and disappear at random. Essentially his universe is fundamentally different to ours in such a manner that it is unknowable. Science cannot exist in this universe. I would call that physically different.

2. The force a particle experiences is dependent on its velocity. Newton's second law of motion is wrong and by extension all other laws of physics. This would require that all phenonmenon that is currently explained by any science must be reexplained by these new laws of motion. For example if I hold a ball in my hand and then release it, why does it fall to the ground?

3. The earth is rotating.

 

[NailsII]

I think he has given up.

However if he hasn't I would more like an explanation of what is happening with geostationary satellites.

If they are not moving and the earth is not moving they are experiencing no external forces as per Newton's first law of motion. However if the relative (to the earth) velocity of the satelitte is changed to a certain value it will orbit the earth and when it returns to the original point will change velocity and therefore be shown to be experiencing a force at that point.

There are three resolutions to this apparent appearance and disappear of a force.

1. Forces appear and disappear at random. Essentially his universe is fundamentally different to ours in such a manner that it is unknowable. Science cannot exist in this universe. I would call that physically different.

2. The force a particle experiences is dependent on its velocity. Newton's second law of motion is wrong and by extension all other laws of physics. This would require that all phenonmenon that is currently explained by any science must be reexplained by these new laws of motion. For example if I hold a ball in my hand and then release it, why does it fall to the ground?

3. The earth is rotating.

brilliant.
I love it.
i think he should give up.
RichardT, if you read this, go back and look at the first mistake you made: taking an assumption, taking it as correct and expecting the evidence fits it.
Science doesn't take pleasure from over-ruling the bible, especially those who started the trend ie galileo.
i bet he took little comfort in being right.
Please, you have a decent enough brain - use it constructively. Don't waste it on a stone-age assumption.
You really are better than that.

 

[LeeC]

If the earth is stationary, how come we have magnetic poles?

I was under the impression that magnetism was induced by the rotation of the earth on the iron core.....

Correct… but if I put my "faith-head" on... I think I can answer that.

You only need the iron-core to rotate - creating the magnetic field... the molten core could rotate, but the rest of the planet could remain motionless. Thus, the moving charge particles in the iron core can create the magnetic field.

Outer crust stationary – inner core rotates. Easy?

(Although, I think we would have to ignore friction and the conversation of angular momentum in this theory - but hey, what is that compared to the idea that the 115,000 stars that have a measured parallax are just "moving backward and forward" in a merry dance with a period of 365.24 days?)

SO many problems RichardT has to ignore... but that’s OK - RichardT's faith is very strong - so he can ignore ALL of it and believe the bible 100%.

This raised another good observation though – How come Genesis 1 does not mention the Earth’s magnetic field? Without it, we would NOT be here thinking about it. (That nasty sun of ours is always throwing charge particles/radiation at the Earth – it would have stripped away most of our atmosphere by now without the magnetic field.)

And how come Gen 1 does not talk about the wonderful Northern/Southern lights? Oh yeah – the bible writers did not know about them.

Another item to add to “what is missing” in Gen 1

Cheers

Lee

 

[NailsII]

Just imagine though, (I won't do the maths, I am too lazy!!) a star 10 light years away. It moves around the earth every 24 hours.
A star 20 light years away also moves around the earth every 24 hours, so how fast must it be travelling?
Nice point about the northern/southern lights though LeeC, I like that.

 

[RichardT]

I want to state that I haven't rejected Geocentricity, I will try to work around the difficulties. I have also not rejected creationism (don't plan on anytime soon). We share multitudes of ERVs with chimpanzees (although not in PtERV1 and PtERV2, which contain hundreds of insertion points that are specific only to chimpanzees). I will work around the difficulties and try to figure (or read about and understand) working mechanisms for what we observe (I've heard of the hot spots in the genome explanation, I haven't studied it much though). It is possible that I reject the Modified Tycho Brahe System.

Having to admit defeat and state that earth centered system is simply some useless non-inertial reference frame, where the earth would still orbit the sun would make me feel like a biblical skeptic, that is off limits to me. I believe the bible.

One thing geocentrists had better do if we want to survive this kind of skepticism is to develop an explanation for the various observable phenomena in a geocentric framework. Of course, we can’t just go back to Aristotle. We have to bring current empirical discoveries and data into the picture as well, and little by little we have to understand the whole geocentric layout in some detail. That’s quite an ambitious project, I admit, but I’m encouraged by the fact that conventional astronomers have been working on the Copernican system for more than 300 years and haven’t got it figured out yet, so we are no worse off than they. I hope that folks can bear with us for a while.

 

[NailsII]

I want to state that I haven't rejected Geocentricity, I will try to work around the difficulties. I have also not rejected creationism (don't plan on anytime soon) even though we share multitudes of ERVs with chimpanzees (although not in PtERV1 and PtERV2, which contain hundreds of insertion points that are specific only to chimpanzees). I will work around the difficulties and try to figure (or read about and understand) working mechanisms for what we observe (I've heard of the hot spots in the genome explanation, I haven't studied it much though). It is possible that I reject the Modified Tycho Brahe System.

Having to admit defeat and state that earth centered system is simply some useless non-inertial reference frame, where the earth would still orbit the sun would make me feel like a biblical skeptic, that is off limits to me. I believe the bible.

I don't think enyone has ever said we do share all our ERVs with chimps - it is currently believed that we separated from them (or their ancestors, to be more presice) permanatly about 6 million years ago.
This leaves plenty of time for their own evolutionary odities to occur, as well as our own.
And BTW, no-one here would think anything less of you if you became a 'bible sceptic' as you describe it - genesis (for example) was written by stone age men for a stone age world.
You could rationalise it by accusing any biblical passage that doesn't match confirmed evidence of being inserted by man (or satan, that is the Islamic view of nasty bits in the Koran) and not quoted directly from god.
That way you can cherry pick the bits that help you become a better human being.