Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[BrainHertz]

No, Bouw talked about it in his book "Geocentricity".

My link was to Dr Bouw's primer on his website. Do you understand what I was getting at? My point was this: you might want to consider looking at sources other than Dr Bouw. The guy it nuts. And a liar.

I just read the paper (it's only seven pages). It

a) isn't proposing classical mechanics, as far as I can tell
b) in no way arrives at a geocentric conclusion

Please, though, read it for yourself, and tell me if you think I'm wrong.

Most importantly of all, please, please consider not taking everything Dr Fruitloop and his buddies say at face value.

 

[ProphetMarecavallo]

Cavalloism does not agree

 

[Chalnoth]

By the way, RichardT, I don't think you ever responded to my post #241.

 

[Loudmouth]

The entire purpose of this thread was to in fact show that stellar parallax was not a problem for the modified Tychonic system, now that this has been conceded by most of us, I am quite satisfied.

Conceded by whom?

It is a very serious problem for the Tycho Brahe system. Even Tycho Brahe himself agrees.

I've simplified it by saying that as long as looking at the sun as a reference frame, as long as the earth seems to orbit the sun, gravitation is satisfied.

The Earth and Sun orbit around the center of mass between the two bodies. Given the fact that the Sun is much more massive this center of mass is within the Sun itself.

 

[Pesto]

I'd also like Richard to address post 188.

Why is it that the Sun moves slightly closer to the Earth for half a year, then stop and creep back away from the Earth? What is the mechanism behind this?

 

[OdwinOddball]

Conceded by whom?

It is a very serious problem for the Tycho Brahe system. Even Tycho Brahe himself agrees.



The Earth and Sun orbit around the center of mass between the two bodies. Given the fact that the Sun is much more massive this center of mass is within the Sun itself.

Important addendum, though the center of mass is within the sun itself, it is not at the center of the sun, just enclosed within the body of the sun.

 

[Lucretius]

It turns out I don't have access to that specific article, as it is too old and my library does not carry Proceedings of the Physical Society older than the 1960's.

However, from checking out a few of Bouw's other papers, he seems to be some of a few people who were whining about the veracity of General Relativity. Well — the paper is some fifty years out of date — GR has been verified beyond any reasonable doubt in regions that it is applicable (excluding extreme regions like blackholes and whatnot, the Earth is not one of these regions.)

 

[Pesto]

Well, it looks like Richard has abandoned the thread.

Richard, why won't you answer our questions?

 

[[serious]]

Rich may be running some of this by other geocentrists. Give him time.

 

[BrainHertz]

Rich may be running some of this by other geocentrists. Give him time.

I can't wait...

 

[TheOutsider]

Rich may be running some of this by other geocentrists. Give him time.

It shouldn't take him this long to get his apologetics down.

 

[RichardT]

I'll get back to you guys on the mechanism.

BTW, I really like this quote:

"When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity."

 

[Lucretius]

I'll get back to you guys on the mechanism.

BTW, I really like this quote:

"When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity."

Scientists don't say objects travel faster than the speed of light though. Space can expand faster than the speed of light, the objects within it don't move at speeds exceeding c.

 

[RichardT]

Scientists don't say objects travel faster than the speed of light

Do you by any chance have access to this?

"Rotation in Cosmology" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128)

 

[BrainHertz]

Do you by any chance have access to this?

"Rotation in Cosmology" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128)

Uh oh. Where is your original quote cited from? And where is the reference to the paper from?

{edit} by the way, in case it wasn't clear why I should ask, you still seem to be awfully trusting of Dr Bouw; when an article on his website gives a reference to some barely accessible paper and states that it supports the geocentric position, you seem to be very willing to accept that it is indeed so.

The last paper you pointed to saying that you "were told" gives a classical derivation of geocentricity does not. It was rather obscure, and googling for the original text leads straight back to the reference at geocentricity.com. When I managed to find the text, it turns out not to be talking about classical mechanics, and doesn't even mention geocentricity, let alone derive a supporting result.

Now when I type ""Rotation in Cosmology" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128)" into google, guess what I get? (try it). Have you read the paper? Do you actually know what it says? Do you still believe the assertions by the geocentricity website that it supports their position?

I'll be sure to dig it out and read it.

 

[BrainHertz]

Do you by any chance have access to this?

"Rotation in Cosmology" (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128)

Okay. I have the paper. Now what?

 

[RichardT]

Okay. I have the paper. Now what?

What does it say?

 

[BrainHertz]

What does it say?

It reports what it claims to be the first direct measurements of the rotation of the universe.

Strange. The quotemines in the paper on the geocentricity site (I'm sure you know the one) don't mention that it actually comes up with a numerical result. I'd have thought that would be an important result.

{edit} Here's what I mean. The paper on geocentricity.com says:

The idea of a rotating universe has been addressed in the secular literature on many occasions. Yu. N. Obukhov, in the recent study ”Rotation in Cosmology” (General Relativity and Gravitation, Vol. 24, No. 2, 1992, pgs. 121-128), observes that “Since the first studies of Lanczos, Gamow and Gödel, a great number of rotating cosmological models have been considered in the literature. Nevertheless the full understanding of observational manifestations of cosmic rotation is still far from reach. Moreover, there is a general belief that rotation of the universe is always a source of many undesirable consequences, most serious of which are timelike closed curves, parallax effects, and anisotropy of the microwave background radiation. The aim of this paper is twofold — to show that the above phenomena are not inevitable (and in fact, are not caused by rotation), and to find true effects of cosmic rotation.” Unfortunately, Obukhov refrains from putting the other foot down: “Here we shall not enter into a discussion of [the] philosophical significance of cosmic rotation (though, in our opinion, the analysis of its relation to the Mach's principle is of great interest).” Nonetheless, he follows the evidence to its conclusion: “As we can see, pure rotation can be, in principle, large, contrary to the wide-spread prejudice that large vorticity confronts many crucial observations.”

But strangely, doesn't include the part where they include an actual value for rotation in radians per year. Given that the whole point of making the above reference is to show that the universe rotates once every 23 hours and 56 minutes, I'd have thought that was important.

 

[RichardT]

But strangely, doesn't include the part where they include an actual value for rotation in radians per year. Given that the whole point of making the above reference is to show that the universe rotates once every 23 hours and 56 minutes, I'd have thought that was important.

Not strangely, all the paper had to demonstrate was that in the case of a rotating universe objects can travel faster than C.

 

[Lucretius]

Not strangely, all the paper had to demonstrate was that in the case of a rotating universe objects can travel faster than C.

Objects in a rotating universe cannot exceed 'c' in speed either. Galilean Relativity is not an appropriate model for understanding velocities in the universe. If the universe has some rotational speed v1, what is meant by this is the following: to a non-rotating observer, the objects within the universe appear to be rotating around it at this speed. A very important thing about rotating universes that you, Richard, seem to neglect, is that there is no one single axis of rotation, about which the entire universe rotates, as this violates the Copernican Principle. There is nothing special about Earth's location in a physical sense, and so any other spot in the universe would also appear to be an 'axis of rotation' for the entire universe.

It would seem that Richard has the faulty idea that the universe is some sort of merry-go-round, and the Earth is the center. Thus objects near the outside of the universe would appear to be rotating faster and faster, and that it would be appropriate to add velocities in a Galilean sense, when this is known to be an incorrect thing to do when objects travel at speeds significantly close to c.

Velocity addition in relativity forbids any speeds greater than c. How one would think that any physical solution to Einstein's equations would allow this is beyond me.