Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[Quantic]

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

OK. But this is such a technical subject that analogy, metaphor, and anthropomorphisms must be used carefully; or not at all!

Another thing: strings (super or not) are currently just a mathematical construct that is being tried to explain why some physical constants have the values they do. There is no experimental evidence for strings at the moment, so using strings to try to solve the problems of geocentricism seems very silly.

 

[MoonLancer]

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...

I think that a telescope would beable to tell the distance is dramatically changing over the course of 6 hours. In simplistic way i think your right, the planets would appear to the be moving in that way but the illusion is lost when distance is taken into account, right?

 

[RichardT]

There's an entire history that spans from the 18th century to now (LeSage, Newton, Kelvin, Mach) that I would have to explain in order to demonstrate what I believe about gravitation / relativity.

 

[MoonLancer]

I think that a telescope would beable to tell the distance is dramatically changing over the course of 6 hours. In simplistic way i think your right, the planets would appear to the be moving in that way but the illusion is lost when distance is taken into account, right?

I mean Mars would appear to increase by nearly twice it size in a 12 hour period.

 

[BrainHertz]

I mean Mars would appear to increase by nearly twice it size in a 12 hour period.

No, I don't think that's what the Tychonic model says; not all of the orbits take place in 24 hours. The orbit of Mars about the Sun is still shown to be about 2 years, its just the orbit of the Sun (and everything orbiting it) about the Earth is 1 day, so during the course of 1 day, the distance from Mars to Earth remains constant. It varies dramatically during the course of each year, though.

This is my understanding: by the time you throw in all of the necessary corrections, all you end up with is a heliocentric model with a shifted reference frame. What is missing is any kind of explanation or mechanism.

 

[Lucretius]

Some more strange math errors on Bouw's part are on his page where he is deriving power as a fundamental quantity.

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/ftsrc/ft7.html

His steps are valid up to Eqn. 9, but his simplification of ln(m)=-2ln(L)+K seems invalid. In order to get rid of the natural logs, we exponentiate both sides by e, yielding e^(ln(M))=e^(-2ln(L))+e^K. Since e^(ln(x))=x, we get M=L^-2+C, where C=e^K. Thus, we find that M=(1/L^2)+C. This means that, unlike Bouw's m=K/L^2, mass is really independent of the integration constant, not directly proportional to it.

 

[BrainHertz]

Lucretius,
aside from the mathematical errors, I'm more concerned that his whole premise is just fundamentally nonsensical. After tooling around the site for a bit, I've discovered that it goes downhill from there...

...until you find a paper with an abstract which begins:

This paper shows that a humanistic government violates the second law of thermodynamics...

Yes, that's an actual quote.

 

[RichardT]

Where did you find that? The abstract is:

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is mathematically to demonstrate that whether or not the creation is geocentric, the universe has to rotate as a solid body in order for it to exist. This is done by examining the very foundations for the laws of physics, which laws relate properties such as mass, distance, and gravity by fundamental constants. It is the values of these fundamental constants which requires the rotation of the universe and, furthermore, specifies that the rotation period is of the order of one day.

 

[BrainHertz]

Richard,
It's a different paper by the same author on the same site. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't have privileges to post links here yet, but the title of the paper is "Entropy and the New World Order".

 

[RichardT]

Richard,
It's a different paper by the same author on the same site. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't have privileges to post links here yet, but the title of the paper is "Entropy and the New World Order".

Couldn't find it. I searched for "Entropy and the New World Order", and I searched for the quote, didn't find anything.

 

[lemmings]

http://www.geocentricity.com/creationism/index.html

Entropy and the New World Order
This paper shows that a humanistic government violates the second law of thermodynamics and must collapse on itself with the most likely scenario that 39% of the world's resources and population will be destroyed each time it is attemped.

http://www.geocentricity.com/creationism/entropyandnwo.pdf

This paper was drafted back in 1975. For years, I've been hoping
to finish it, but the Lord has kept me from it. Perhaps this warning is
not meant for the eyes of the world.

Is this guy really a scientist?

 

[BrainHertz]

Couldn't find it. I searched for "Entropy and the New World Order", and I searched for the quote, didn't find anything.

Go to the home page, and click "Astronomy and the Young Universe" on the left hand side. The paper is at the bottom of the list.

 

[MoonLancer]

No, I don't think that's what the Tychonic model says; not all of the orbits take place in 24 hours. The orbit of Mars about the Sun is still shown to be about 2 years, its just the orbit of the Sun (and everything orbiting it) about the Earth is 1 day, so during the course of 1 day, the distance from Mars to Earth remains constant. It varies dramatically during the course of each year, though.

This is my understanding: by the time you throw in all of the necessary corrections, all you end up with is a heliocentric model with a shifted reference frame. What is missing is any kind of explanation or mechanism.

The orbit of the sun is in 24 hours. It would take the planets with it along this orbit causing the planet to apear to increase and shrink in size within a 12 hour period. It would still take 2 years for the planet to orbit the sun but the sun takes mars along for the ride.

Whats odd here is we have a orbit of the sun being faster then the orbit of the planets and thats not logical. Most secondary orbits (like the moon to the earth) is faster then the orbit so we never see this effect. BUT in this case the planet moves slower then the orbit its following, causing a very strange effect that should be an observable difference then the standard scientific model.

This is because large celestial bodies tend to have more mass (although this is not always true). Its not logical for the universe to revolve around the sun and the sun to revolve around the earth when their is no way to explain this. we have not seen evidence to even suggest this.
.

 

[RichardT]

Couldn't find it. I searched for "Entropy and the New World Order", and I searched for the quote, didn't find anything.

Richard,
It's a different paper by the same author on the same site. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

I don't have privileges to post links here yet, but the title of the paper is "Entropy and the New World Order".

Never mind, I actually read that a long time ago, it deals with the myth of overpopulation.

 

[us38]

Some more strange math errors on Bouw's part are on his page where he is deriving power as a fundamental quantity.

http://www.geocentricity.com/geocentricity/ftsrc/ft7.html

His steps are valid up to Eqn. 9, but his simplification of ln(m)=-2ln(L)+K seems invalid. In order to get rid of the natural logs, we exponentiate both sides by e, yielding e^(ln(M))=e^(-2ln(L))+e^K. Since e^(ln(x))=x, we get M=L^-2+C, where C=e^K. Thus, we find that M=(1/L^2)+C. This means that, unlike Bouw's m=K/L^2, mass is really independent of the integration constant, not directly proportional to it.

The math does work out correctly on that one. One cannot exponentiate terms separately. e^(-2ln(L)+K)=e^(K)*e(-2ln(L))=K/L^2 since e to an arbitrary constant is still an arbitrary constant.

 

[RichardT]

Is this guy really a scientist?

He's a biblicist and has an M.S., Ph. D. in astronomy and a B.S. in astrophysics.

 

[BrainHertz]

The orbit of the sun is in 24 hours. It would take the planets with it along this orbit causing the planet to apear to increase and shrink in size within a 12 hour period. It would still take 2 years for the planet to orbit the sun but the sun takes mars along for the ride.

Right, but the whole thing is orbiting around the Earth in this model. If you were to print out a chart for "today's" locations of the Sun and planets for this model, stick a pin in it through the center of the Earth and then rotate the piece of paper one complete revolution for the day. Then the planets and Sun will retain constant distances from the Earth during the course of a day.

Over the course of months and years, the positions of the planets and Sun on the piece of paper will change.

Whats odd here is we have a orbit of the sun being faster then the orbit of the planets and thats not logical.

No argument

Most secondary orbits (like the moon to the earth) is faster then the orbit so we never see this effect. BUT in this case the planet moves slower then the orbit its following, causing a very strange effect that should be an observable difference then the standard scientific model.

This is because large celestial bodies tend to have more mass (although this is not always true). Its not logical for the universe to revolve around the sun and the sun to revolve around the earth when their is no way to explain this or even that we have not seen evidence to even suggest this. .

Right. That's where this model fails to make sense. It requires that not only do things like gravity and inertia fail to apply to planets, but they do apply to spacecraft (and maybe comets and asteroids? I'm not clear on that). Not only that, it is required that spacecraft behave in such a way that planets actually are subject to gravity and inertia, and moving as such, whilst at the same time actually not doing so. I hope that's perfectly clear...

 

[MoonLancer]

Right, but the whole thing is orbiting around the Earth in this model. If you were to print out a chart for "today's" locations of the Sun and planets for this model, stick a pin in it through the center of the Earth and then rotate the piece of paper one complete revolution for the day. Then the planets and Sun will retain constant distances from the Earth during the course of a day.

Over the course of months and years, the positions of the planets and Sun on the piece of paper will change.

No argument


Right. That's where this model fails to make sense. It requires that not only do things like gravity and inertia fail to apply to planets, but they do apply to spacecraft (and maybe comets and asteroids? I'm not clear on that). Not only that, it is required that spacecraft behave in such a way that planets actually are subject to gravity and inertia, and moving as such, whilst at the same time actually not doing so. I hope that's perfectly clear...

yeah i get you. I don't understand why the planets would not appear to increase and decrease in size. I know the sun would look the way it always would but i would think the planets would increase in size 100% in a 12 hour time.

 

[BrainHertz]

yeah i get you. I don't understand why the planets would not appear to increase and decrease in size.

The planets don't traverse the elliptical orbit shown in the diagram each day; they orbit in a circle centered on the Earth each day, and traverse the orbit shown in the diagram over the course of each of their respective years.

 

[MoonLancer]

The planets don't traverse the elliptical orbit shown in the diagram each day; they orbit in a circle centered on the Earth each day, and traverse the orbit shown in the diagram over the course of each of their respective years.

I think i get what your saying now, but i don't think thats what riches model is showing. The way i see it, ether the planets loop or we see should be seeing celestial bodies eclipse each other when they clearly don't.

Thanks for trying to help though, but i don't think i will get it, unless i see the 3rd rotation. that video rich showed didn't show much.