Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[Blayz]

What the...

There you go Rich, proof that there is always someone in the world more confused than you.

 

[Lord_Marx]

It's really quite frightening if you look at the amount of time and effort Matt Marriott spends on this stuff.

I really do feel sorry for him. What a horrible life it must be to think everything is controlled by the illuminati.

 

[lemmings]

It seemingly must. I said this before, when choosing the sun as a reference frame, the earth must seemingly orbit the sun in order to satisfy the laws of gravitation / relativity. As long as this occurs, the universe is satisfied. The ether would be a permeating medium that would direct the absolute motions of the universe. There is really no physical difference between the geocentric theory and the modern heliocentric view. They are both correct coordinate systems. (Show me the flaws in this reasoning)

"all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them … Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true."

- E. Mach

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

— Sir Fred Hoyle

According to Dr. Bouw, if the universe didn't rotate, it would collapse.

MASSIVE SUPERSTRINGS AND THE FIRMAMENT

What is it that you are arguing? All that you have shown is that we can model motions using any reference frame with significantly longer and more complicated equations than necessary? This is still a far cry from proving that space is made from a super dense and thus far undetected substance or most of the other things that you have claimed.

 

[theFijian]

What the...

Mr Kettle was just introducing himself to you Mr Pot.

 

[[serious]]

What the...

Rich, despite any other differences we may have, at least we agree on this.

 

[Opcode42]

Well, you obviously know nothing about absolutely everything now do you (that's the impression I get, because any idiot could have written what you wrote).

This is what always seems to happen, I start a thread about an issue where I want an absolutely serious discussion of it, and these "people" that I could not distinguish from any uneducated person come up and tell me that I'm stupid.

Richard, I'll say one thing here which you can verify is the truth with anyone else in this thread.

You are the ONLY poster in this thread who considers this a serious discussion. Everyone else is humoring you with the quite likely vain hope that you can be snapped out of the spell you are under before you grow up and start spreading your affliction to the rest of the world.

I posted such harsh criticism because it is absolutely absurd to see this nonsense in an era when we have visited all 8 major planets in our solar system, landed on 4 of them plus two moons, dropped probes into Jupiter's atmosphere, successfully rendezvoused with asteroids and comets, and walked in person on our own moon.

We did all this using a heliocentric model which has been verified mathematically, observationally, and experimentally, at times risking, and sometimes losing, the lives of our brave sons and daughters in the process. And all of the work and research, all the trials, all the men and women who strive to further our understanding by actually venturing into our solar system, is based on the heliocentric model. And none of those that have ventured into space or risked their lives on the calculations of modern physics in a heliocentric system, have provided any evidence for the ether, a star shell, or a geocentric model.

Your ideas toss out all of physics and astronomy based on the self centered need to maintain your illusions of uniqueness and chosen status in our universe. It is absolutely disgusting that you could have gone through presumably 11 years of school now and end up so deluded.

The posters in this thread co respond with you not to find out if you are correct, but instead to find out if it is possible to rescue your mind.

Stop kidding yourself RichardT. If you are gong to hold to such outdated and laughable ideas in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence, you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone, much less the many scientists that you regularly converse with in these topics.

 

[RichardT]

Richard, I'll say one thing here which you can verify is the truth with anyone else in this thread.

You are the ONLY poster in this thread who considers this a serious discussion. Everyone else is humoring you with the quite likely vain hope that you can be snapped out of the spell you are under before you grow up and start spreading your affliction to the rest of the world.

I posted such harsh criticism because it is absolutely absurd to see this nonsense in an era when we have visited all 8 major planets in our solar system, landed on 4 of them plus two moons, dropped probes into Jupiter's atmosphere, successfully rendezvoused with asteroids and comets, and walked in person on our own moon.

We did all this using a heliocentric model which has been verified mathematically, observationally, and experimentally, at times risking, and sometimes losing, the lives of our brave sons and daughters in the process. And all of the work and research, all the trials, all the men and women who strive to further our understanding by actually venturing into our solar system, is based on the heliocentric model. And none of those that have ventured into space or risked their lives on the calculations of modern physics in a heliocentric system, have provided any evidence for the ether, a star shell, or a geocentric model.

Your ideas toss out all of physics and astronomy based on the self centered need to maintain your illusions of uniqueness and chosen status in our universe. It is absolutely disgusting that you could have gone through presumably 11 years of school now and end up so deluded.

The posters in this thread co respond with you not to find out if you are correct, but instead to find out if it is possible to rescue your mind.

Stop kidding yourself RichardT. If you are gong to hold to such outdated and laughable ideas in the face of mountains of contradictory evidence, you are not going to be taken seriously by anyone, much less the many scientists that you regularly converse with in these topics.

For all I care I could argue that the heliocentric system might be more mathematically simple to send probes out to further planets (but again, Einstein's field equations can be solved from any reference frame). What I am arguing for is the physical equality of both systems. Some Geocentrists argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple. I do in fact agree with the following article.

OCCAM'S RAZOR IN THE HANDS OF COPERNICANS, A BLUNT INSTRUMENT

 

[FishFace]

For all I care I could argue that the heliocentric system might be more mathematically simple to send probes out to further planets. What I am arguing for is the physical equality of both systems. Some Geocentrists even argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple.

OCCAM'S RAZOR IN THE HANDS OF COPERNICANS, A BLUNT INSTRUMENT

It's not physically equal because Heliocentrism doesn't demand the existence of an ether or any other force which accelerates distant stars to many times the speed of light.

Your article there has completely misunderstood Ockham's razor which is frequently, but incorrectly, presented as "the simplest explanation is the best," whereas actually it states, "do not multiply entities unnecessarily."
The idea is that for any concept to make it into acceptance it has to earn its way there by explanation. Your system of goodness knows what with epicycles and ether and all doesn't explain the data any better than a heliocentric model, but has more entities - ether being one of them.

ETA: The so-called "complexities" raised with heliocentrism seem to mainly be things that we have to have anyway to make any sense of the world. You can't explain much at all if you try to do away with force, mass, time, space and so on. These have already earned their acceptance, and continue to do so without any extra "expenditure" if we can reapply them to heliocentrism.
The article complains that the universal law of gravitation relies on non-existent concepts of point masses, which A) are useful approximation and B) are no less existent than circles. The principle of force becoming infinite when distance becomes small is the idea behind black holes, but quantum physics fixes the infinity. Calling a universal constant a fudge factor is so wrong as to be laughable. It is one single constant that enables the description of every large gravitational system. You need one fudge factor at least for every single body in the universe to "explain" (not even explain, merely describe) the motions of the planets and so on. The "complexities" of 4 are again accepted by mathematicians; their application is utterly non-controversial. If you have a beef with differential equations, sort it out with a mathematician (or I will ask my tutor for you if you like) because they... work. 5 again is a problem only if you are mathematically inept. 6 & 7 ignore numerical methods for solution and ignore the fact that you are provided with something far more valuable - an explanation, rather than a description.

And of course they ignore the actual meaning of Ockham's razor, still.

The article is founded on a misunderstanding. You have (at least) one more entity - the ether. That is in violation of Ockham's razor. I could postulate a new system where the centre of the universe is my left nostril and an invisible pixie moves everything around it. Not much use.

 

[Chalnoth]

For all I care I could argue that the heliocentric system might be more mathematically simple to send probes out to further planets. What I am arguing for is the physical equality of both systems. Some Geocentrists even argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple.

Heh. Simpler? Hardly. First you have the fact that the universe appears to rotate about the Earth (due to the Earth's rotation). That alone is a massively complex adjustment to the metric. Then you have the whole universe appearing to wobble back and forth (due to Earth's revolution around the Sun), which is an even worse adjustment. Then you have the procession of the Earth's axis (the Earth processes about its axis approximately once every 20,000 years, due to the torque induced by tidal forces from the Sun-Earth-Moon system), which makes things even worse. Then the Earth's axis wobbles as well. So yeah, not even remotely simple.

But if we take a reasonable approach, the coordinate system of the universe can be written down in an absurdly simple manner:

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...which is basically Cartesian coordinates with an additional expansion factor (a(t)) from the expansion of the universe. No need to deal with rotation, revolution, precession, or wobbling. The above metric just works.

 

[OdwinOddball]

Heh. Simpler? Hardly. First you have the fact that the universe appears to rotate about the Earth (due to the Earth's rotation). That alone is a massively complex adjustment to the metric. Then you have the whole universe appearing to wobble back and forth (due to Earth's revolution around the Sun), which is an even worse adjustment. Then you have the procession of the Earth's axis (the Earth processes about its axis approximately once every 20,000 years, due to the torque induced by tidal forces from the Sun-Earth-Moon system), which makes things even worse. Then the Earth's axis wobbles as well. So yeah, not even remotely simple.

But if we take a reasonable approach, the coordinate system of the universe can be written down in an absurdly simple manner:

ds^2 = dt^2 - a(t)^2(dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2)

...which is basically Cartesian coordinates with an additional expansion factor (a(t)) from the expansion of the universe. No need to deal with rotation, revolution, precession, or wobbling. The above metric just works.

And now watch Richards head explode. Because if he could actually understand the math behind your post, he wouldn't be posting this blather to begin with.

 

[Paulos23]

What is so special about the earth that the whole of creation moves around it anyway? Other then a few words in an old book there is no evidence for the earth to stay in one spot. It makes more sense that the rules of physics are evenly applied across the universe, even if that means giving up being the center of the universe, then to say they apply to all but us.

That 'but us' leads to many complications in the attempt to explain it that would not be needed if you allowed everything to follow the same rules.

 

[Dragar]

Some Geocentrists even argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple.

Some geocentrists are idiots.

 

[RichardT]

Mars assumes a highly elliptic orbit that can move it between .38 AU and 2.67 AU. Closer to the sun than Mercury, the second hottest planet in our system, and farther than the asteroid belt, an area that should be void of large objects. Yet the planet also remains colder than the Earth.

Mercury and Venus are on average farther from the Sun than the Earth, yet both of these planets have a surface tempura in excess of 800/900 degrees Fahrenheit. They also chose to orbit around a point where no body exists to gravitationally attract the planets.

MODIFIED TYCHO BRAHE SYSTEM

Sorry, I didn't really notice your post so much before but this is a huge misunderstanding of the model. Mars will never get that close to the sun because the orbits of the planets are focused on the sun. Remember, the sun is the geometric center of the universe while the earth is the dynamic center in this model. The earth is always offset from the center but never moves. The original Tycho Brahe system, which agreed with all observations at his time also had the planets orbiting the sun. Although in his model, the earth was the geometric center of the universe so the distant stars would simply rotate the earth. The original Tycho Brahe system is not as useful today because it does not account for the aberration / parallax of distant stars, in Brahe's time they did not know the immense distances of the universe that we know today.

ORIGINAL TYCHO BRAHE SYSTEM

 

[lemmings]

For all I care I could argue that the heliocentric system might be more mathematically simple to send probes out to further planets. What I am arguing for is the physical equality of both systems. Some Geocentrists even argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple.

Your geocentric model will never be able to account for the motions of the planets because of the ether. It doesn’t mater what reference frame that we use to look at the Universe because your system will never be able to account for movement.

 

[us38]

Richard, according to the Tycho Brahe system, the sun can be between mars and jupiter. Why do we never see this?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

For all I care I could argue that the heliocentric system might be more mathematically simple to send probes out to further planets.

You could argue that but you would be wrong, or perhaps you would like to show us some simple equations to calculate the paths of a space probe in the geocentric system.

What I am arguing for is the physical equality of both systems.

Equivalence in caculations does not mean equivalence in reality. If you are sitting in a airplane flying at a constant speed over the earth you can argue the it is physically equivalent to consider the plane sitting still, the air rushing by and the earth rapidly moving under the plane. You can calculate the arrival time of the plane as easily this way as if you consider the plane to be moving relative to the earth. But if you consider that the plane is "really" sitting still and the earth really rushing by underneath you are completely flipping nuts. Geocentrists consider the earth to be still and the universe to be rushing around the earth which is why everyone else thinks they are completely flipping nuts.

Some Geocentrists even argue that the Geocentric coordinate system is more simple.

OCCAM'S RAZOR IN THE HANDS OF COPERNICANS, A BLUNT INSTRUMENT

You will notice that he doesn't actually tell you how to calculate anything in the geocentric system.

 

[RichardT]

Equivalence in caculations does not mean equivalence in reality. If you are sitting in a airplane flying at a constant speed over the earth you can argue the it is physically equivalent to consider the plane sitting still, the air rushing by and the earth rapidly moving under the plane. You can calculate the arrival time of the plane as easily this way as if you consider the plane to be moving relative to the earth. But if you consider that the plane is "really" sitting still and the earth really rushing by underneath you are completely flipping nuts. Geocentrists consider the earth to be still and the universe to be rushing around the earth which is why everyone else thinks they are completely flipping nuts.

In your airplane example, there is no known mechanism for how the earth can go around the plane. There is a mechanism for why the plane would be moving relative to the earth.

As E. Mach, H. Thirring, J. Lense, P. Gerber, A. Einstein et. al. have shown, there is really no known mechanism for the earth's motion which cannot be taken as the universe's rotation.

- A. Einstein

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

In your airplane example, there is no known mechanism for how the earth can go around the plane. There is a mechanism for why the plane would be moving relative to the earth. As E. Mach has shown, there is really no known mechanism for the earth's motion which cannot be taken as the universes rotation.

What? What is the "known mechanism" that allows the entire universe to rotate around the earth each day? A fantasy about a rotating plenum ether is not a "known mechanism". If I am wrong I would like you to explain to exactly, in your own words, how it is that Mach's prinicple gives a mechanism that allows the entire universe out to the farther star to whiz around the earth each day.

 

[RichardT]

What? What is the "known mechanism" that allows the entire universe to rotate around the earth each day? A fantasy about a rotating plenum ether is not a "known mechanism". If I am wrong I would like you to explain to exactly, in your own words, how it is that Mach's prinicple gives a mechanism that allows the entire universe out to the farther star to whiz around the earth each day.

Have you heard of massive superstrings?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Have you heard of massive superstrings?

Yes. But before you attempt to explain how massive superstrings allow the universe to whip around the earth each day as Bouw claims, I would like you to explain how the rotation rate of the universe changes with seasons and how it can be instantly changed out to the farthest star by massive earthquakes. You might also address my question about the angular momentum of the voyage space probe. Those question are on the "no physical difference" thread IIRC.