Ask a physicist anything. (4)

[Dr.Strangelove]

The Coriolis effect is proof that the Earth is spinning. These effects are easily observed both in meteorology, hydrodynamics, projectiles, etc.

And if Coreolis can be easily explained in a geocentric universe?

As for the earth orbiting the sun? That is an easy one: If it was not so then the observed orbit of Mars would not be observed as retrograding at certain times of the year

If Mars orbits the sun and the sun orbits the fixed Earth (like we observe), then some retrograde motion isn't a problem.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yeah IF the Earth goes round the sun then the baseline is sufficient. BUT that IF is an assumption. Therefore stellar parallax is theoretical.

Of course it's an assumption. I stated that clearly and explicitly. The point is that the assumption works. If the Earth goes round the Sun, we should see stellar parallax. We see stellar parallax. The heliocentric hypothesis is therefore supported, since it makes testable predictions that work.

Where is this phenomenon? Show me it please. Is there a photo or a printout of the actual observation?

Like I said, there are plenty of papers on the subject. Do a search on Google Scholar.

The stars move in precisely the right way as if we were living in a geocentric universe.

Then by all means, demonstrate how geocentrism explains the movement of the stars that mainstream science attributes to parallax and aberration.

Can you show me though?

Show you what?

But parallax is theoretical so it's not reliable. Is musings.

It's empirically deductive: we have a hypothesis that we can empirically text. Parallax is a phenomenon we should observe if the hypothesis is correct. Since we do indeed observe parallax (or, at least, something which looks suspiciously identical to parallax), the hypothesis is vindicated.
That makes it not theoretical musings, but hard, empirically verified, fact.

So how far is pluto away using geocentric parallax? Can you show me the calculations please?

Get a telescope and do it yourself.

If you say geocentric parallax can show us the distance to pluto then maybe we do know it's distance.

Then perhaps you'd like to answer my second question: do you really believe that the stars are closer to us than Pluto?

The pendulum changing it's course is due to coreolis force correct?

Correct. The Earth rotates, and to non-inertial observers a fictitious force seems to rotate the pendulum slowly. We can predict how long it will take the pendulum to completely rotate given its latitude (the quintessential Parisian pendulum took 32 hours, I believe) - and, lo and behold, every Foucault pendulum operates exactly as we'd expect.

How does the geocentric model account for this? If the Earth does not rotate, as you seem to be claiming, what, then, causes the phenomenon we observe? Why do Foucault pendula rotate in mathematically precise ways?

Huh?

If I throw something, the Earth is, minutely, spun the opposite direction.
Imagine if I were balancing on a big sports ball. If I jump off it one way, the ball will spin the other (and, if it's on the ground, it will roll away).
The same is true for the Earth. Every impact, every force applied to the Earth, exerts some spin on it. The sheer act of throwing something across the room exerts a tiny, but finite, force upon the Earth - causing it to spin.

Assuming they are the distance that stellar parallax says they are. A parallax that relies on the assumption that the Earth orbits the sun. Not admissable in court I'm afraid.

Sure it is: given the variety of methods that support heliocentrism, and given that parallax measurements yield results in complete corroboration with every other independent technique used, we have every reason to believe the Earth orbits the Sun.

The Modified Tychonic model will do just fine yes.

How deliciously unparsimonious.

Do these 'mechanics' involve gravitational forces? Coz last I checked gravity doesn't describe how one mass orbits another mass. It's just a word that describes heavyness. Are you sure theres no theoretical science here?

You might want to check again. Gravity is the force that attracts to objects of mass proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance; if you doubt it exists, drop an apple. See what happens. The force that makes it fall to the ground is called gravity. Gravity creates the tides on Earth, the volcanoes on Io, it powers the Sun, and it explains the celestial phenomena we see around us.
So, yes, these mechanics go by the name of General Relativity, though even Classical Mechanics will suffice, and we can deduce how and why the planets behave as they do.

Simply put, objects of mass move towards one another. It is our understanding of this that let us put men on the Moon (though I wouldn't be surprised if you think that was a hoax...).

But please, please, please tell me you don't believe in gravity. It will make my day, and also have pride of place on my sig.

Are you talking about coreolis force?

Correct. It is similar phenomenon that occurs with Foucault pendula: the Earth rotates beneath the falling object, creating the illusion of sidewards motion.

Is it possible that parallax and aberration are not separate but a single phenomenon that is not due to the earth’s motion, but due to properties of space between a geocentric earth and distant stars?

No, simply because the phenomenon vanish under certain conditions (e.g., a telescope pointing in the right direction sees no aberration, very distant stars exhibit no parallax). Besides, you're the one who believes the stars to lie within the orbit of Pluto...

A heliocentric universe explains these phenomena quite elegantly, but I've yet to see any explanation from geocentrists.

So theres no way a pendulum can display that phenomenon in a geocentric universe?

I'd be very interested in seeing your explanation as to how a non-rotating Earth in a geocentric universe can account for the motion Foucault pendula.
Of the geocentrists I've spoken to, the only two 'explanations' offered are: 1) the movement is forged, or 2) there is no movement.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Here's a question:

Moon's orbit planets. Asteroids, comets, and planets orbit stars. Stars orbit the black holes at the center of the galaxy. So, do galaxies orbit anything? Bigger galaxies? Super-massive black holes (though I imagine the necessary size for a black hole such that galaxies would orbit it would be beyond the theoretical limit)?

Supermassive black holes exist at the centre of galaxies; a black hole bigger than that is just distressing to think about

But yes, galaxies do orbit things. Satellite galaxies are small galaxies that orbit larger galaxies, occasionally colliding to compose a larger galaxy still. They can orbit super-structures of galaxies, clusters of galaxies close together than galaxies themselves orbit (our own cluster being the Virgo Cluster).

Second question: Do we know of celestial objects that are orphaned? By that I mean, do we know of, say, stars that are not part of a galaxy?

Yep: stars can get flung out of their parent galaxy and into the intergalactic void, and the Hubble telescope has found a fair few hundred in our own galactic cluster. What a lonely existence that must be for intelligent life.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

For the Love of God tell me this is a joke or poe.

I love God. Thats why I believe his Word.

16:30 Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved.​

I also believe my God given senses, I believe what I see and feel, not what theoretical science tells me.
​

6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.​

 

[Tinker Grey]

There are runaway stars that were flung from their orbit! Eventually they will be captured into new orbits, perhaps in another galaxy.

Hubble catches heavyweight runaway star speeding from 30 Doradus

11 May 2010

A heavy runaway star rushing away from a nearby stellar nursery at more than 400 000 kilometres per hour, a speed that would get you to the Moon and back in two hours. The runaway is the most extreme case of a very massive star that has been kicked out of its home by a group of even heftier siblings. Tantalising clues from three observatories, including the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope’s newly installed Cosmic Origins Spectrograph (COS), and some old-fashioned detective work, suggest that the star may have travelled about 375 light-years from its suspected home, a giant star cluster called R136.

Very cool. Thanks.

 

[Tinker Grey]

*snip*

Thank you.

Could the known universe be said to be orbiting some arbitrary point in n-dimensional space? If this has been speculated about, what might be the nature of said arbitrary point?

Thanks.

 

[mzungu]

And if Coreolis can be easily explained in a geocentric universe?



If Mars orbits the sun and the sun orbits the fixed Earth (like we observe), then some retrograde motion isn't a problem.

With all due repsect, this is what is known as "Cartoon Physics".

Coyote will be very proud of your theory (or lack of it)

 

[Nabobalis]

Northampton is too far North to have anything of value, I'm sure

I went to Durham once, that was just frightening!

I do prefer the south myself, hopefully go to London for a PhD. Otherwise I might stay in the area.

But does the North scare you?

 

[Nabobalis]

And if Coreolis can be easily explained in a geocentric universe?



If Mars orbits the sun and the sun orbits the fixed Earth (like we observe), then some retrograde motion isn't a problem.

Why would the planets have their own orbit in the first place if they are orbiting the earth and how would that of come about?

 

[Nabobalis]

With all due repsect, this is what is known as "Cartoon Physics".

Coyote will be very proud of your theory (or lack of it)

 

[PhoceanCity]

But this is surely circular reasoning.

Heres a schematic of trigonometric star parallax:

At the bottom we see that the measurements assume that the Earth is orbiting the sun.

So they take a measurement to the target, and then six months later take another measurement ASSUMING the Earth is 186 million miles away on the other side of the sun.

So you're saying because we can measure the stars using a system that assumes the Earth orbits the sun, we can prove the Earth orbits the sun.

It's circular.

It's theoretical trig because one of the points is completely made up.


Doc.

I may be wrong but I think your model lacks something and maybe this is why you don't understand star parallax. You need to have other stars in the background to calculate the relative position of a star. You see as we revole around the sun, the relative distance between star in our sky change and this phenomenon can only be explained by a Heliocentric model.

from BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Looking at the sky

 

[PhoceanCity]

And if Coreolis can be easily explained in a geocentric universe?



If Mars orbits the sun and the sun orbits the fixed Earth (like we observe), then some retrograde motion isn't a problem.

So according to you model, we would see mars transiting in front of the sun sometimes?

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Of course it's an assumption. I stated that clearly and explicitly. The point is that the assumption works. If the Earth goes round the Sun, we should see stellar parallax. We see stellar parallax. The heliocentric hypothesis is therefore supported, since it makes testable predictions that work.

So, I have an assumption that the sun is a giant table lamp. If the sun is a giant lamp then we should see light eminating from it. We do see light eminating from it. The giant lamp hypothesis is therefore supported, since it makes testable predictions that work.

Does that mean science proves the sun is a giant lamp?

Like I said, there are plenty of papers on the subject. Do a search on Google Scholar.

Oh I thought this was 'ask a physicist anything' and he'll come up with the answers. Never mind.

Then by all means, demonstrate how geocentrism explains the movement of the stars that mainstream science attributes to parallax and aberration.

I've never seen any parallax or aberration. If you want to show me some maybe I can explain it.

Show you what?

The rest use stellar phenomena to calculate star distances that you mentioned.

It's empirically deductive: we have a hypothesis that we can empirically text. Parallax is a phenomenon we should observe if the hypothesis is correct. Since we do indeed observe parallax (or, at least, something which looks suspiciously identical to parallax), the hypothesis is vindicated.
That makes it not theoretical musings, but hard, empirically verified, fact.

Any trigonometry that makes up a 186 million mile baseline is false. And thats FACT.

Get a telescope and do it yourself.

I thought you were dishin' out answers? No your telling me to go find out for myself.

Then perhaps you'd like to answer my second question: do you really believe that the stars are closer to us than Pluto?

No I don't. How far is Pluto way from Earth? You can give me the Geo and Helio trig answers if you want.

Correct. The Earth rotates, and to non-inertial observers a fictitious force seems to rotate the pendulum slowly. We can predict how long it will take the pendulum to completely rotate given its latitude (the quintessential Parisian pendulum took 32 hours, I believe) - and, lo and behold, every Foucault pendulum operates exactly as we'd expect.

How does the geocentric model account for this? If the Earth does not rotate, as you seem to be claiming, what, then, causes the phenomenon we observe? Why do Foucault pendula rotate in mathematically precise ways?

The coreolis force is created by the entire universe rotating around the fixed Earth.

If I throw something, the Earth is, minutely, spun the opposite direction.
Imagine if I were balancing on a big sports ball. If I jump off it one way, the ball will spin the other (and, if it's on the ground, it will roll away).
The same is true for the Earth. Every impact, every force applied to the Earth, exerts some spin on it. The sheer act of throwing something across the room exerts a tiny, but finite, force upon the Earth - causing it to spin.

I really don't know what your talking about.

Sure it is: given the variety of methods that support heliocentrism, and given that parallax measurements yield results in complete corroboration with every other independent technique used, we have every reason to believe the Earth orbits the Sun.

You have a theoretical reason.

How deliciously unparsimonious.

I couldn't even google that!

You might want to check again. Gravity is the force that attracts to objects of mass proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of their distance; if you doubt it exists, drop an apple. See what happens. The force that makes it fall to the ground is called gravity. Gravity creates the tides on Earth, the volcanoes on Io, it powers the Sun, and it explains the celestial phenomena we see around us.
So, yes, these mechanics go by the name of General Relativity, though even Classical Mechanics will suffice, and we can deduce how and why the planets behave as they do.

I tried dropping an apple. Surprisingly it didn't orbit my ankles.

Simply put, objects of mass move towards one another. It is our understanding of this that let us put men on the Moon (though I wouldn't be surprised if you think that was a hoax...).

Of course it was a hoax.

But please, please, please tell me you don't believe in gravity. It will make my day, and also have pride of place on my sig.

Gravity is heavyness. I believe in that force.

Correct. It is similar phenomenon that occurs with Foucault pendula: the Earth rotates beneath the falling object, creating the illusion of sidewards motion.

In the geocentric system, what you see is what you get, You can believe you're own eyes. The pendulum is really changing it's direction and the falling object is really moving sideways. It's reality. It's nice.

No, simply because the phenomenon vanish under certain conditions (e.g., a telescope pointing in the right direction sees no aberration, very distant stars exhibit no parallax). Besides, you're the one who believes the stars to lie within the orbit of Pluto...

A heliocentric universe explains these phenomena quite elegantly, but I've yet to see any explanation from geocentrists.

I've seen an explanation from geocentrists but I'll wait until I've seen the actual phenomenon till I bring it forward. Not that I understand the math involved but you might.

I'd be very interested in seeing your explanation as to how a non-rotating Earth in a geocentric universe can account for the motion Foucault pendula.
Of the geocentrists I've spoken to, the only two 'explanations' offered are: 1) the movement is forged, or 2) there is no movement.

Barbour and Bertotti tested rotating a hollow shell around a solid central sphere and found that coreolis and centrefugal forces were created.

If the hollow sphere is the universe and the solid central sphere is the Earth then that would explain the phenomenon in a geocentric universe.

This is from the book "Galileo was Wrong" by Dr. Robert Sungenis and Dr. Robert Bennett. 650 pgs.

Quote:

One can imagine why many who were looking for proof of a rotating Earth would appeal to the Foucault pendulum. It seems logical to posit that the reason the plane of the pendulum appears to be moving in a circle is that the Earth beneath it is rotating. In other words, the heliocentrist insists that the pendulum's circular motion is an illusion. The pendulum is actually moving back-and-forth in the same plane and the Earth is turning beneath it. Since the Earth is too big for us to sense its rotation, we instead observe the plane of the pendulum rotate. All one need do to prove the Earth is rotating, he insists, is to reverse the roles, that is, imagine the plane of the pendulum is stationary and the Earth beneath it is moving. This particular logic, however, doesn't prove that the Earth is rotating. One can begin the critique by asking this simple question: if the pendulum is constantly swinging in the same plane (while the Earth is rotating beneath it), what force is holding the pendulum in that stationary position? In other words, if the plane of the pendulum is stationary, with respect to what is it stationary? This is understood as an 'unresolved' force in physics. The only possible answer is: it is stationary with respect to the rest of the universe, since it is certainly not stationary with respect to the Earth. With a little insight one can see that this brings us right back to the problem that Einstein and the rest of modern physics faced with the advent of Relativity theory: is it the Earth that is rotating under fixed stars, or do the stars revolve around a fixed Earth? As Einstein said: 'The two sentences: the sun is at rest and the Earth moves, or the sun moves and the Earth is at rest, would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.'

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves. According to Einstein, there is no difference between the two models. Ernst Mach, from whom Einstein developed many of his insights, stated much the same. He writes: 'Obviously, it doesn't matter if we think of the Earth as turning round on its axis, or at rest while the fixed stars revolve round it. Geometrically these are exactly the same case of a relative rotation of the Earth and the fixed stars with respect to one another. But if we think of the Earth at rest and the fixed stars revolving round it, there is no flattening of the Earth, no Foucault's experiment, and so on..'.

Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag.

End Quote.

Thoughts?

P.S. For anyone wanting more detail on this, a guy called Richard Elmendorf has done a tremendous amount of research on the Foucault Pendulum and has published it in an illustrated 84-page monograph entitled "Heliocentric Humbug! A critical investigation of the Foucault Pendulum". As far as I know it can be ordered for $5 from the Pittsburgh Creation Society, P.O. Box 267, Bairdford, PA 15006, U.S.A.

I've heard that Focault Pendulums are faked too. Have you examined the ones you've seen to make sure there are no mechanical parts or rigged areas?



Doc..,,;..///

 

[PhoceanCity]

Doc, can you explain to us a geocentric model where you can see Venus and Mercury pass in front and behind the sun relativly (sic?) to us? Can you tell us where would be Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus according to this model?

 

[Nostromo]

If Mars orbits the sun and the sun orbits the fixed Earth (like we observe), then some retrograde motion isn't a problem.

I cannot believe that you're serious, it's quite obvious that this model is wrong.
For one thing, if it were correct, we wouldn't see most of Mars' retrograde orbit, because it would be lost in the glare of the Sun.

We'd see the Sun in the middle of this back and forth motion, but we don't.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

I cannot believe that you're serious, it's quite obvious that this model is wrong.
For one thing, if it were correct, we wouldn't see most of Mars' retrograde orbit, because it would be lost in the glare of the Sun.

We'd see the Sun in the middle of this back and forth motion, but we don't.

So according to you model, we would see mars transiting in front of the sun sometimes?

Oops!

I put the Ptomlomeic model in there. Sorry. My bad.

Mars retrograde action in the modified Tychonian model is explained on pg 143 of this online book:

Geocentricity

If you see anything wrong with that expanation then post back.

 

[Dr.Strangelove]

Doc, can you explain to us a geocentric model where you can see Venus and Mercury pass in front and behind the sun relativly (sic?) to us? Can you tell us where would be Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus according to this model?

Does the diagram above help?

Obviously Uranus and Neptune hadn't been discovered in Tycho's time so their not on there.

 

[Nostromo]

Mars retrograde action in the modified Tychonian model is explained on pg 143 of this online book:

Can you link directly to the page, or the book, because there are a few documents on that site and I'm not sure which one I'm supposed to be looking at.

 

[Nostromo]

As such, it would be just as logical, not to mention scientifically consistent, to posit that the combined forces of the universe which rotate around the Earth are causing the plane of the pendulum to rotate around an immobile Earth. In other words, in the geocentric model the movement of the pendulum is not an illusion, it really moves.

Indeed, if you consider the universe from the reference frame of an observer on Earth, then the rest of the universe rotates around you.

The problem with adopting this as support for geocentricity is that it is valid for any other point in the universe.

Coriolis forces on Venus can be explained by saying that the universe rotates around Venus.

 

[PhoceanCity]

Originally Posted by Dr.Strangelove

Does the diagram above help?
Obviously Uranus and Neptune hadn't been discovered in Tycho's time so their not on there.
​

Your new diagram don't make much sense.
According to your model and assuming mars is the red dot, we wouldn't observe any retrograde motion of mars in our sky and we would see mars passing in front of the sun sometimes.
Also, I think you're a troll.