Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[RichardT]

Exactly right! Only articles with sound scientific underpinnings are accepted.

Even many evolutionist articles are obviously not accepted. There is a limit to the number of articles one can fit in a periodical.

 

[Chalnoth]

Even many evolutionist articles are obviously not accepted. There is a limit to the number of articles one can fit in a periodical.

Only a few big-name journals reject articles because they have too many applicants. The rest reject articles purely based upon whether or not they are scientifically sound (provided the refereeing process works as desired).

 

[RichardT]

Alright, I downloaded 3D canvas (It's not the best, but my computer couldn't support anything better). I'll try to get the motions right.

 

[Chalnoth]

Alright, I downloaded 3D canvas (It's not the best, but my computer couldn't support anything better). I'll try to get the motions right.

If you want to explain it, do so mathematically.

 

[RichardT]

If you want to explain it, do so mathematically.

Unfortunately, I don't know how yet.

 

[RichardT]

Here are some screen shots of the relative sizes of the earth and sun.

 

[MoonLancer]

lol.. I was creating the earth and the sun with their real relative sizes. I created the earth first, and when I created the sun it scared the crap out of me.

Here are some screen shots.

EDIT: Shoot, I thought I could see the earth in the first one, guess not. Alright, I changed them back to the original resolution.

I can see it in the first one. Anyway, I don't know if the models are compatible. I would be animating them, so the flight paths could be compared. If you have data on rotations of the planets in your model please post them.

For the animation I was using parents with null objects but I really just need to know how many times each planet rotates per an earth year. Is the suns revolution around the earth 1once a day? I know I can look this up, is this the same as what general scientists believe?

I predict that that each day, if the planets revolve around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth, that the planets will move towards and away from the earth at a incredible speed (revolution of the sun) and that this should be miserable.

 

[RichardT]

I can see it in the first one.

Sorry, I meant to say that originally the resolution was compressed, these are the original images, but on the compressed ones that I originally had up, you could not see the earth.

If you have data on rotations of the planets in your model please post them.

I'm not up to there yet.

Is the suns revolution around the earth 1once a day?

The sun rotates with the universe everyday around the earth.

I predict that that each day, if the planets revolve around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth, that the planets will move towards and away from the earth at a incredible speed (revolution of the sun

You're right.

and that this should be miserable.

Why is this miserable?

 

[lemmings]

Unfortunately, I don't know how.

Assign a variable for a unit of time so that T can equal 24 hours and you can increase this value by 1 each cyle. Assuming that the calculator you are using uses degrees then multiply the value of T by 360 divided by the duration of that planet’s orbit and save this as anouther variable D. This will give you the degrees of offset from the starting position. To find the (X,Y) position of the planet you would then take the Sine(D) and Cosine(D) and multiply the output by the orbit’s adverage radius.

There is a little more work that you would have to do to account for the movement of the sun and arround the Earth and the Z values for the orbital planes but this is the majority of it. I am going to make a java verson of a geocentric simulator in the next few days so hopefuly I can get that up and running.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Richard

I am still waiting for you to explain why the rate the universe whizzes around the earth each day changes slightly with seasons and how it can be changed by earthquakes.

Also you had some questions about space probes and lunar astronauts to answer as well if I remember right.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

BTW the Lense-Thirring effect of rotating mass which geocentrists have claimed can be used to explain Corealis forces actually does predict that the rotation of the earth will have measurable effects on earth satellites and this effect of the earth's rotation has recently been found to fit the prediction fairly well as discussed HERE.

 

[RichardT]

Check out what I found on the NASA site. A comparison of the heliocentric model to the geocentric ones, it's a student project, where the student would have to present the models in class.

http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show_58_student_st.php?id=040914145957

The only problem is that NASA doesn't even discuss the Modified Tychonic System. So they'll make it seem as if they've falsified all Geocentric models.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/science3.html

"Galileo further discovered that the planet Venus shows phases just like the Moon, which (in conjunction with changes in its apparent size) could be best explained by a heliocentric model, or by Tycho's geocentric model."

Correct.
http://www.madsci.org/FAQs/earth/earth.html

 

[lemmings]

How does geocentricy deal with Newton’s Third Law of Motion or gravitational slingshots that use the Earth's mass?

 

[Lucretius]

Doesn't this model violate simple center of mass observations? The center of mass between the Sun and the Earth is inside the radius of the Sun. Objects orbit about their center of mass. Thus, the Sun-Earth system involves the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the Sun ever-so-slightly wobbling about.

 

[lemmings]

Doesn't this model violate simple center of mass observations? The center of mass between the Sun and the Earth is inside the radius of the Sun. Objects orbit about their center of mass. Thus, the Sun-Earth system involves the Earth orbiting the Sun, and the Sun ever-so-slightly wobbling about.

RichardT ignores this because Bouw effectively says that forces are imaginary and must only give the illusion of operating the way that we believe them to.

In other words, as long as the sun believes that the Earth is orbiting it over a period of 1 year, gravity is happy.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Check out what I found on the NASA site. A comparison of the heliocentric model to the geocentric ones, it's a student project, where the student would have to present the models in class.

http://nasaexplores.nasa.gov/show_58_student_st.php?id=040914145957

The only problem is that NASA doesn't even discuss the Modified Tychonic System. So they'll make it seem as if they've falsified all Geocentric models.

http://www.bluffton.edu/~bergerd/NSC_111/science3.html

"Galileo further discovered that the planet Venus shows phases just like the Moon, which (in conjunction with changes in its apparent size) could be best explained by a heliocentric model, or by Tycho's geocentric model."

Correct.

Yes but Tycho couldn't measure stellar parrallax and thus thought there was justification for the geocentic model that Wittich developed. Now stellar parallax can be measured and the ad hoc model that geocentrism requires to try to explain it is strained to the max.

Now back to my questions. How does your complaining about NASA answer any of them? Can you answer any of them? Do you realize that the recent NASA data show how the rotation of the earth affects satellites through the Lens-Thirring effect as expected since the earth is a rotating mass?

Can you explain seaonal differences in the rate the universe revolves around the earth in the geocentric model?

How about the effect on earthquakes on the rotation of the universe?

What about my questions regarding astronauts and space probes?

Here's another. Why does the rotating universe "wobble" to make it appear that the angle of the of the earths rotating axis changes over time leading to the precession of the equinox?

 

[NailsII]

The only problem is that NASA doesn't even discuss the Modified Tychonic System. So they'll make it seem as if they've falsified all Geocentric models.

Would you expect a pharmaceutical company to discuss creationism when designing medicines?

 

[BrainHertz]

This model deals with massive superstrings.

MASSIVE SUPERSTRINGS AND THE FIRMAMENT

"The frontiers of modern cosmology are advancing on two fronts: twistors and superstrings, both of which originated in particle physics. These two areas hold the promise of providing us with, as F. David Peat reports it, "the theory of everything." Strangely, many of the properties of Roger Penrose's twistors, and Green, Schwarz, and Witten's superstrings, have significant theological overtones. This is to be expected of a theory of everything. The present author has independently been working on a theory of the firmament since 1977, a theory which took its present form in 1987.Since 1988 the three theories have been converging. With the recent generalization of superstring theory to massive superstrings, the firmament theory and superstring theories are as close as they can come without combining. The firmament theory presented here solves some of the outstanding problems of superstring theory, most significantly, what is the ultimate fate of a black hole."

-- Dr. Bouw

I just read through the linked paper, and it appears to be, well, gibberish. Is there anything else that Dr. Bouw has written on the subject that I should look at?

 

[Pesto]

I define myself to be stationary. Therefore, when I walk the Earth rotates underneath me, and the whole universe in conjunction with the Earth. All other humans move relative to the Earth when they walk.

 

[MoonLancer]

Why is this miserable?

typo. I meant measurable . We should be able to see with telescopes that the planets are moving in corkscrews. It should be very erratic. Why don't we see this?