Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

Atheuz · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
I know that the universe is huge. The ether would be moving these objects.

And you have yet to prove the existence of the Ether or anything in the Universe moving at hyper luminal speeds(Because that's what it is, this isn't just 5 kilometers above the speed of light, it's like c^c)

lemmings · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
I know that there were complications with it, what does this have to do with MoonLancer's question?

I was replying to your answer to his question in post 172.

Pesto · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
Well, no wonder people have been asking me silly questions lately.

What we do is reject any assumption in relativity that actually allows the earth to move, we believe that all motion is relative with respect to the ether, while the ether is absolute, I don't know how to argue for this yet though. It gets into massive superstrings.

Richard, you're very close to the truth, but it is not actually the Earth which is fixed with relation to the ether. It is me.

Whenever I walk, the Earth rotates underneath me. You, on the other hand, move relative to the surface of the Earth. When I walk, it may look like I am moving relative to the Earth, but that is not the case. You see, as long as the Earth believes that I am walking on it, and it is not actually rolling underneath me, then all the physical laws are satisfied.

I can see where you would be mistaken. As I am completely stationary, and I have never left the planet Earth, the Earth does remain nearly completely stationary.

FishFace · Nov 12, 2007

Pesto said:
Richard, you're very close to the truth, but it is not actually the Earth which is fixed with relation to the ether. It is me.

Whenever I walk, the Earth rotates underneath me. You, on the other hand, move relative to the surface of the Earth. When I walk, it may look like I am moving relative to the Earth, but that is not the case. You see, as long as the Earth believes that I am walking on it, and it is not actually rolling underneath me, then all the physical laws are satisfied.

I can see where you would be mistaken. As I am completely stationary, and I have never left the planet Earth, the Earth does remain nearly completely stationary.

Actually, although your calculations appeared to show it was centred on you, the centre of the universe is actually a point displaced two centimetres away from your centre of mass exactly in the direction of the centre of the freckle on my right thumb.
Oh, then it's displaced half a millimetre in the direction of the teapot orbiting somewhere in the asteroid belt. (There's no evidence for that, but it's there.)

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

the sun orbits the earth, the planets orbit the sun. This is the orbit the planet will follow because of the sun. They have their own orbit around the sun, but they also follow the sun around the earth. Is this what you think we observe? When we observe with telescopes and measure with distance, we do not observe this. Every day is a loop. We should see this happening if we were to observe any planet for a night.

*image removed*

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
Yeah.
We do. That was what the ancients observed and jotted down with their epicycles and deferents, this is of course assuming I know what you're talking about.

Show me a scientist with a telescope that has observed a planet making a secondary orbit as large as the suns supposed orbit around the earth.

This is were the two system have observable differences. your system has not been observed.

RichardT · Nov 12, 2007

Problem: The sun's "orbit" is not elliptical.

Here are the motions of the sun. It will first show you the yearly motion then the yearly/daily motions combined.

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/research/orrery/mechano/motion.avi

Remember that when looking at the earth from the sun's reference frame, the earth must seem to orbit it in order for the laws of gravitation to be satisfied.

Pesto · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
Problem: The sun's "orbit" is not elliptical.

Here are the motions of the sun. It will first show you the yearly motion then the yearly/daily motions combined.

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/research/orrery/mechano/motion.avi

Of course, according to your model, the radius of the sun's "orbit" will shrink and grow slightly over the course of the year. What is the mechanism behind this?

Lucretius · Nov 12, 2007

Dr. Bouw's "proof" that Power is a fundamental entity is flawed right from the beginning. He has fudged his mathematics in order to get the result he wants.

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/ftsrc/ft6.html

Take a look at his partial differentiation of equation 3 in (4).

Power, which he describes in terms of m(l^2)(n^3), he claims derives into:

But anyone familiar with basic multivariable calculus (or single variable, just assume l and m to be constants when deriving with respect to n) knows that m(l^2)(n^3)dn is 3m(l^2)(n^2) and NOT the 3m(l^2)(n^3) result which Bouw derives (n^3dn is 3n^2, NOT 3n^3!).

However, it would appear as if Bouw uses my correct values when coming up with his result in (6), however, the conclusions he seems to draw make very little sense. Subtracting the dP/dn from dE/dn, can be re-written as dE/dt(dt/dn)-dE/dn, but what physical sense does (dt/dn) have, when n = (1/t)? This would imply dn=(-dt/t^2). When we apply this to our differentiation, we get something quite strange. dP/dn=(dE/dt)(dt/dn) = (dE/dt)(-dt(t^2)/dt). This simplifies to -dE(-t^2). How is it that we are able to subtract dE/dn (or dEdt) from -dEt^2? The units are not the same. To put it a bit simpler without the math — a change in power with respect to time is not the same as a change in energy with respect to time, because power itself is a change in energy with respect to time.

(*note, I treated the partials as if I could simply multiply them, but I believe this is valid if I remember by basic differential equation rules)

us38 · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
I believe in the Modified Tychonic System.

Richard, for at least the fourth time, can you tell me why we never see the sun between Mars and Jupiter?

Quantic · Nov 12, 2007

RichardT said:
We believe in gravity. As long as the sun thinks the earth is orbiting it, gravity is satisfied.

Come on, what is this? The sun doesn't "think". The sun is a big ball of luminous gas.

Your in secondary school right? If your school offers a physics class you should enroll in it.

RichardT · Nov 12, 2007

Quantic said:
Come on, what is this? The sun doesn't "think". The sun is a big ball of luminous gas.

Your in secondary school right? If your school offers a physics class you should enroll in it.

Yeah I know, I said it that way because I thought it was just a simplistic way of explaining it.

RichardT · Nov 12, 2007

us38 said:
Richard, for at least the fourth time, can you tell me why we never see the sun between Mars and Jupiter?

I've explained this many times. Remember that the sun is the geometric center of the universe in this system.

BrainHertz · Nov 12, 2007

Richard,
you didn't respond to my question on page 17 (I know there's a lot of postings here...).

I'll repost:

If I understand correctly, you believe in motions which look exactly like a heliocentric model, with the exception of the fact that the reference frame is shifted such that the Earth is stationary with respect to an absolute reference frame (the Ether)? I'm pretty sure that's what you get from a modified Tychonic system (by the time it's been modified to match all available observations).

That sort of leaves the question of "why?". I don't see evidence for such a thing, and plenty of evidence to the contrary, specifically in terms of a physical mechanism.

I don't think any variant of strings help here... as I posted to earlier, the mathematics of Dr. Bouw look like gibberish to me (and don't have anything to do with strings either). Is there some other piece of evidence that leads you to this conclusion?

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

lemmings · Nov 12, 2007

us38 said:
Richard, for at least the fourth time, can you tell me why we never see the sun between Mars and Jupiter?

The solar system is heliocentric, however the Earth is not apart of the Modified Tychonic System, it exists as an anomaly which everything rotates around.

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

I simplified the image. each day the planet loops. Look how close the planet travels in 24 hours. Thats fast. It should be observable. Show me that it is.

I messed up the orbits in the last image but its fixed now. I was only trying to show the planets motion due to the suns orbit that was provided.

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

lemmings said:
The solar system is heliocentric, however the Earth is not apart of the Modified Tychonic System, it exists as an anomaly which everything rotates around.

What does science say about such a anomaly that all matter is drawn it? why has this not been observed? ALso, How is it so strong to effect the entire universe but not have a stronger pull to objects closer to it. How are we not crushed by this force? How is it that the earth has its own gravity but also has this magical center of the universe gravity?

MoonLancer · Nov 12, 2007

lemmings said:
Epicycles and deferents failed. The orbits created where epicycloids and hypocycloids, neither of which are seen in the movements of planets.

Besides being unable to properly predict the orbits, they also broke the laws of gravity since a counterweight has never been discovered and also where horibly complex requireing over 10 epicycles to control any one planet with 16th century percession.

I diden't see this. My image Is showing what would happen with the mars? and its effected orbit by the suns revolution. Is this the supposed answer that rich is giving? that it an invisible barrier so the orbit is much smaller? still, we should be able to see this in a telescope right?

BrainHertz · Nov 12, 2007

MoonLancer said:
I simplified the image. each day the planet loops. Look how close the planet travels in 24 hours. Thats fast. It should be observable. Show me that it is.

I messed up the orbits in the last image but its fixed now. I was only trying to show the planets motion due to the suns orbit that was provided.

The model actually works fine - the 24 hour "orbit" of the planets is just the rotation of the Earth on its axis which causes the planets to "rise" and "set" each day. This is exactly what is observed.

All this really does is shift the frame of reference to that of a stationary Earth. You can't tell it's wrong by observing the motions of the planets (or stars, once you've also included the required ludicrous superluminal motions).

The thing which is missing is a mechanism, or an explanation of why spacecraft motions work exactly as if the motion we see is orchestrated by gravity, and yet somehow planets are immune to it.

Richard...? Over to you...

Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

It's comforting to know that this isn't a test

Veteran

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Contributor

Senior Member

Senior Veteran

im in ur mind, disturben ur sanities

Member

Contributor

Contributor

Senior Member

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Veteran

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Attachments

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar

Senior Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency