Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[MoonLancer]

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.

in your links, it shows the sun as the 3rd? orbit around the earth, not the universe revolving around the sun? I'm confused. You still using the model from your first posts right?

 

[RichardT]

in your links, it shows the sun as the 3rd? orbit around the earth, not the universe revolving around the sun? I'm confused. You still using the model from your first posts right?

Those links are not the modified tychonic system, they don't represent what I believe, I merely pointed it out. The universe is rotating with the sun.

 

[RichardT]

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?

That's what we do see, what do mean? When we look at space from our point of view what we see is an epicycle with deferents, just like the Ptolemaic system envisioned by the ancients. Of course, I don't believe in epicycles or deferents, I believe in the modified Tychonic system.

This is what the Ptolemaic system envisioned, this is also what's observed from our point of view. (Also, they envisioned a 3D version of it, it's 2D here for simplicity)

Again, for whatever reason some lurker might think that I believe the above to be absolute motion, I don't. I believe in the modified Tychonic system that I described on page one, I hope I make myself clear.

The following is the "orbit" of mars within the Ptolemaic system, which was envisioned by the ancients, with the epicycle and deferent.

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/geocentric.html

I believe in the Modified Tychonic System.

 

[Lucretius]

Bouw is taking the concept of quantum foam and basically calling it an aether. We have measured the effects of the quantum foam on objects within the universe — we call it the Casimir Effect. It does not have the properties which Bouw ascribes to it; namely, allowing the Earth to be the center of the universe.

Besides, if Newton's Law of Gravitation is wrong, what gives Bouw any right to use the Gravitational Constant in his equations for deriving characteristics of Superstrings? The Gravitational constant, after all, was discovered because two massive objects have a mutual gravitational attraction. Gravity is UNIVERSAL, it also applies in the Sun-Earth system, meaning geocentrism is not an option.

 

[RichardT]

Bouw is taking the concept of quantum foam and basically calling it an aether. We have measured the effects of the quantum foam on objects within the universe — we call it the Casimir Effect. It does not have the properties which Bouw ascribes to it; namely, allowing the Earth to be the center of the universe.

Besides, if Newton's Law of Gravitation is wrong, what gives Bouw any right to use the Gravitational Constant in his equations for deriving characteristics of Superstrings? The Gravitational constant, after all, was discovered because two massive objects have a mutual gravitational attraction. Gravity is UNIVERSAL, it also applies in the Sun-Earth system, meaning geocentrism is not an option.

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

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

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

Do you have any idea how silly this sounds to someone capable of logical thought on the subject? Apparently not. Now can you answer any of the questions I have asked you several times now.

 

[BrainHertz]

Again, for whatever reason some lurker might think that I believe the above to be absolute motion, I don't. I believe in the modified Tychonic system that I described on page one, I hope I make myself clear.

No, that isn't clear to me at all. If you don't believe in the existence of absolute motion, what does it mean to believe in the modified Tychonic system (with whatever modifications to movement of stars to account for parallax and so on) versus a heliocentric model?

What is the difference between the two in your mind?

 

[RichardT]

No, that isn't clear to me at all.

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

you don't believe in the existence of absolute motion

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.

 

[BrainHertz]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.

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?

 

[FishFace]

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

The what now? Ah yes, that entity for which there is no evidence!

while the ether is absolute, I don't know how to argue for this yet though. It gets into massive superstrings.

Hmm... At least you admit you have no argument.

 

[MoonLancer]

That's what we do see, what do mean? When we look at space from our point of view what we see is an epicycle with deferents, just like the Ptolemaic system envisioned by the ancients. Of course, I don't believe in epicycles or deferents, I believe in the modified Tychonic system.

This is what the Ptolemaic system envisioned, this is also what's observed from our point of view. (Also, they envisioned a 3D version of it, it's 2D here for simplicity)

Again, for whatever reason some lurker might think that I believe the above to be absolute motion, I don't. I believe in the modified Tychonic system that I described on page one, I hope I make myself clear.

The following is the "orbit" of mars within the Ptolemaic system, which was envisioned by the ancients, with the epicycle and deferent.

http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/geocentric.html

I believe in the Modified Tychonic System.

relative to us, The planets should be making a a loop as large as the the suns orbit everyday. We should be able to observe this. We don't.

Also i still dont have any data to make a visual representation. I can get such data assumeing the sun is the center. I have no data on how fast the planets revolving around the sun if the sun is revolving around the earth

 

[RichardT]

relative to us, The planets should be making a a loop as large as the the suns orbit everyday.

Yeah.

We should be able to observe this. We don't.

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.

 

[Lucretius]

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

But then gravity is not universal. Universal constants are derived WITHOUT making reference to any special frame of reference. You are claiming that gravity is reference-dependent. The Earth and Sun both have mass. That they should obey the universal law of gravitational is readily apparent. By denying this, you are claiming that gravity is reference dependent.

 

[RichardT]

I think it's amazing that I found the surface of Jupiter and Earth. I added them, it looks cool.

 

[lemmings]

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.

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.

 

[lemmings]

You should look into modeling the thing mathamaticaly first before adding planets further complicating the program.

 

[gamespotter10]

RichardT, we know for almost 100% fact that the universe is bigger than 1 light year in diameter. If the universe orbits the earth in 1 day, then most objects would be traveling faster than light, which is an impossibility. How exactly can geocentricity be possible?

 

[RichardT]

RichardT, we know for almost 100% fact that the universe is bigger than 1 light year in diameter. If the universe orbits the earth in 1 day, then most objects would be traveling faster than light, which is an impossibility. How exactly can geocentricity be possible?

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

 

[RichardT]

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

 

[Lucretius]

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

Again Richard, the speed of light is reference-independent. You contradict yourself by claiming that a reference-independent quantity is dependent upon your frame of reference (namely, that moving without respect to the aether.)