Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[LeeC]

Hey, it could be worse. We could be talking about whether or not the Earth is flat.

Is that evolution? The debate has improved one level up the ladder?

The question I want RichardT to answer is why would God make such a complex system with the Earth at the centre? The Earth is NOT important to the universe - this is why there are billions of other stars, planets and galaxies.

I've not read the "new improved" theory from RichardT, the last one had the stars moving backwards and forwards in space... of course, if this was happening, wouldn't we measure the Doppler shift in the star as it moved? Has this been measured? And, what was the mechanism to explain this motion?

Without a mechanism, or any measured effect - why believe in it? Especially when there is another theory, with an explained mechanism, with measurable observations that works.

Oh, I remember - it is the "the bible is true, must fix evidence to match with bible" theory?


Lee

 

[FishFace]

Stellar parallax has not been solved, RichardT. The following 4 pictures represent the differences between a geocentric and heliocentric universe after 6 months. In the geocentric Universe the stars’ relative positions to each other have not changed and will not produce a parallax.

Image not to scale.
Blue dot = the Earth
Yellow dot = the Sun
Red dot = the Star that we are measuring
Green and purple dots= extremely distant stars which have smaller parallaxes.

RichardT, why haven't you addressed this? In your diagram you have a starry realm, in which no parallax would be observed, yet this is contrary to observed reality. Note that parallax also allows us to compute distance, so you have to explain how things millions of light years away accelerate, stop, reverse and recelerate every single year. What is this magical force?

 

[RichardT]

I want you guys to note what Francis Graham, who was critical of Dr. Bouw had to say about stellar parallax.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part14.html

For the stars, the situation is worse. If Bouw grants the stars are at the distances we know them to be by several means, it is true that kinematically parallaxes and the annual aberration can be roughly accounted for by the Tychonic model, if we assume only relative motions and no dynamics. But the stars would have to be moving at hyperluminal speeds, many thousands of times the speed of light as they whizz around the motionless Earth each sidereal day. For distant galaxies and quasars, the situation is even more absurd: an object 12 billion light-years distant would be moving at 2.76 x 1013 times the velocity of light!

 

[Maxwell511]

I want you guys to note what Francis Graham, who was critical of Dr. Bouw had to say about stellar parallax.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part14.html

For the stars, the situation is worse. If Bouw grants the stars are at the distances we know them to be by several means, it is true that kinematically parallaxes and the annual aberration can be roughly accounted for by the Tychonic model, if we assume only relative motions and no dynamics. But the stars would have to be moving at hyperluminal speeds, many thousands of times the speed of light as they whizz around the motionless Earth each sidereal day. For distant galaxies and quasars, the situation is even more absurd: an object 12 billion light-years distant would be moving at 2.76 x 1013 times the velocity of light!

You are really missing the point. What do you think "assume no dynaimcs" means?

Yes you can build a mathematical description of the motions of bodies in the universe relative to the earth. What you cannot do is account for those motions with the models we have of how the universe works, commonly known as all the laws of physics, if you assume that the earth is not moving. You have to reject all of them, including the Newton's laws of motion and gravity. The physical difference is unbelieveably astounding, and I am at a loss to see how you cannot see that, you are in effect describing two universes that operate in a completely different manner.

If you had to choose between calling Newton a crackpot or some guy with a geocentric theory who would you pick?

 

[us38]

I want you guys to note what Francis Graham, who was critical of Dr. Bouw had to say about stellar parallax.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/2/part14.html

For the stars, the situation is worse. If Bouw grants the stars are at the distances we know them to be by several means, it is true that kinematically parallaxes and the annual aberration can be roughly accounted for by the Tychonic model, if we assume only relative motions and no dynamics. But the stars would have to be moving at hyperluminal speeds, many thousands of times the speed of light as they whizz around the motionless Earth each sidereal day. For distant galaxies and quasars, the situation is even more absurd: an object 12 billion light-years distant would be moving at 2.76 x 1013 times the velocity of light!

Did you even read this? It's saying that the geocentric model doesn't work.

Also, you have still yet to explain why we never see the sun betwixt mars and jupiter.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."


- Martin Luther, Luther's Works. Vol. 1. Lectures on Genesis, ed. Janoslaw Pelikan, Concordia Pub. House, St. Louis, Missouri, 1958, pp. 30, 42, 43.

Geocentrism is only a wee little baby step away from presumptuous interpretations of the Bible "in conformity with our understanding."

 

[Loudmouth]

3. Start in the same position as number 1. Instead of moving your head, move your finger 6 inches to the left and right from your starting position. You'll notice that the finger will move in the same way as what was observed in step 2 with respect to the background. This is the Geocentric interpretation, you'll note that if you were to measure the distances with respect to the more distant background, the angles are not going to be identical to the results in step 2.

4. Start in the same position as in step 1. You'll have to use your imagination now. Imagine the entire room (universe) moving right and left with respect to your finger, this is identical to the Modified Tycho Brahe coordinate system because the universe is being carried with the sun, while the sun is going around the earth everyday.

To conclude, there really is no physical difference between the Geocentric theory and the modern heliocentric view.

What is moving these stars? Also, Lemming's post clearly shows that stellar parallax is not seen in your system. Not only are the near stars moving but the background is moving as well. You did not include this in your model.

I also find it interesting that you use the model first introduced by Tycho Brahe. He did not accept heliocentrism because he was not able to observe stellar parallax, of all the irony. I am quite sure that if Tycho Brahe were alive today that he would throw out his own model.

 

[RichardT]

What is moving these stars? Also, Lemming's post clearly shows that stellar parallax is not seen in your system. Not only are the near stars moving but the background is moving as well. You did not include this in your model.

There are two main motions to the modified Tycho Brahe system. The rotation of the universe and the sun's revolution. The stars simply follow the sun while it revolves the earth. Cinematically, the sun goes around the earth every day, but this is because of the rotation of the universe. The sun actually takes 365 days for it's own revolution.

 

[Chalnoth]

There are two main motions to the modified Tycho Brahe system. The rotation of the universe and the sun's revolution. The stars simply follow the sun while it revolves the earth. Cinematically, the sun goes around the earth every day, but this is because of the rotation of the universe. The sun actually takes 365 days for it's own revolution.

But, as others have noted, this would make for parallax to work on the order of a day, not on the order of a year.

 

[CaligulaNero]

This is the most hilarious thing I have ever read.

 

[Loudmouth]

There are two main motions to the modified Tycho Brahe system. The rotation of the universe and the sun's revolution.

What is causing this rotation?

Also, you quoted another scientists who explicitly states that distant galaxies would have to be travelling at many times the speed of light for your model to work. How do you justify this?

The stars simply follow the sun while it revolves the earth.

No they don't. Other stars are not bound to our Sun.

 

[Dragar]

So, let's see, in order to put the Earth at the center of the universe, you have the entire universe moving back and forth on the scale of a year? Does this sound a mite contrived to anybody else?

Sadly contrived does not neccessary mean wrong. We can't rule this out.

We can mock it though!

 

[peteos]

I'm really confused at this point, especially considering RichardT's post about Francis Graham.

RichardT

1) Are you or are you not proposing that stars travel much much faster then the speed of light?

2) In your model, does the earth spin? If it doesn't, how do you account for the coriolis affect?

 

[RichardT]

1) Are you or are you not proposing that stars travel much much faster then the speed of light?

The stars are being pulled by a plenum ether.

2) In your model, does the earth spin? If it doesn't, how do you account for the coriolis affect?

No. The Coriolis affect would still be there if the universe was being pulled by a plenum ether (laws of gravitation / relativity still must seemingly work, which seems to be a common misconception of geocentricity).

 

[RichardT]

Stellar parallax has not been solved, RichardT. The following 4 pictures represent the differences between a geocentric and heliocentric universe after 6 months. In the geocentric Universe the stars’ relative positions to each other have not changed and will not produce a parallax.

Image not to scale.
Blue dot = the Earth
Yellow dot = the Sun
Red dot = the Star that we are measuring
Green and purple dots= extremely distant stars which have smaller parallaxes.

Thank you Lemmings, this is however not identical to the Modified Tycho Brahe System.

 

[RichardT]

No they don't. Other stars are not bound to our Sun.

Within the MTBS. It takes the sun 365 days to do a full revolution while the stars are always following the sun. The daily rotation of the universe (and hence the sun and the background) would not change the parallax simply because the background is moving with everything still focused on the sun, since the sun is the geometric center of the universe within this system.

 

[peteos]

The stars are being pulled by a plenum ether.

??? Is that a yes or a no?

 

[Atheuz]

RichardT, you need to realize you won't be condemned to hell immidiately for seeing some parts of the Bible as metaphors or just plain bad information(Really that'd be bad, because then only a very small % of Christians would go to Heaven). - Because really, you're looking really stupid trying to defend this continously.

 

[RichardT]

RichardT, you need to realize you won't be condemned to hell immidiately for seeing some parts of the Bible as metaphors or just plain bad information(Really that'd be bad, because then only a very small % of Christians would go to Heaven). - Because really, you're looking really stupid trying to defend this continously.

Salvation is grace through faith (Sin came into the world because of Adam's disobedience to God in the garden, Jesus saves us from God's righteous judgment on sinners, because sin needs to be judged). Not of works lest any man should boast. I believe that there are many TEs that are saved, that does not mean that they are correct in their interpretation of the scriptures.

 

[RichardT]

??? Is that a yes or a no?

Yes. But it doesn't matter if the permeating plenum ether medium is moving faster than the speed of light simply because the known laws of physics would work within it. If it wasn't for the scriptures I too would be unaware of it. The quantum grains which are found all over space are taken by Dr. Bouw to be the planck particles, I would need to study this more though because I wouldn't know if this were possible myself. Anyway, this thread is about the parallax of the stars, not the Ether. If you want to talk about the Ether, start another thread.

EDIT : The planck particles are actually found all around us.