-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax
- Thread starter RichardT
- Start date
![[serious]](/data/avatars/m/160/160873.jpg?1431539545){kind=avatar}
Rich, I understand what you are proposing, but for gravity to hold, you would need a gravitational counter-balance to the sun to pull the system's center of gravity into the earth. This mass would have to be directly opposite the sun and I think it would have to be the exact same mass and distance as we are from the sun. Such a mass would of course have a very significant impact on the other planets and would thus be detectable. Are you throwing out gravity between the earth and sun or is there another explanation?
Upvote
0
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
Upvote
0
Go through the experiment on page 1, tell me, do you understand how the background is moving with the star and the sun for the daily motion?
Upvote
0
Chalnoth
Senior Contributor
Yes.
In order to explain the daily motion of the Sun, you have the Sun orbiting the Earth. In order to explain the orbits of the planets, you have to have them centered on the Sun. In order to explain the lack of observed daily parallax, the stars must not be moving along with the daily motion (except to rotate around the Earth).
Then, in order to explain the seasons, the Sun must be bobbing up and down in its orbit with a period of one year. But now you have a problem: as the Sun looks like it's bobbing up and down, the entire star field appears to be moving in a circle of the exact distance from the Sun to the Earth! The two movements are completely unrelated, and cannot be explained by the same phenomenon if the Earth is stationary.
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
also something of note. I thew the orbital paths into a 3d program.
I noticed something very odd. With your model Rich
the outward planets should be visible twice a year in the same spot in the sky, and the first two planets would be visible if not blocked from the sun. In other words, they travel around the solar system twice. Once because of the earth and once because of the sun. Unless I'm mistake and relativity doesn't work this way... It seems to me that with the planets traveling around the sun is one rotation and the sun around the earth is the second.
Basically Your planets are moving at twice the speed because they are moving at the speed of their own rotation and the rotation of the sun. I decreased the speed of the planets by half and it took 2 years to complete a full orbit. I really don't see a solution to your problem No matter what i do, having two orbits changes the overall orbit of the solar system so drastically that i cant seem to match it to one that is centered on the sun.
their are definitely observable differences, the the planets do corkscrews around the earth
If I have time i will try to get a video up showing you what i mean.
If someone got me data on both systems i could make a more accurate simulation. Like the size of all the planets and their distances from each other.
Upvote
0
What 3D program are you using? Is it free? Can I use it? I would like to model it as well. When I was younger I downloaded this free program called "3D Canvas" and did some pretty cool things with it, but it was too limited. I remember creating animations and then converting them to .wmv format.
Upvote
0
I read it, but it doesn't answer my question at all. If there is a gravity well balancing the gravitational pull of the sun, it would have a gravitational pull on the other planets as well. This would be observable even if it was made up of matter that only interacted via gravity.
Upvote
0
When you say the rotation of the sun you mean the rotation of the universe right? The sun doesn't have it's own rotation.
Upvote
0
Dr. Bouw has been working on his firmament model for years, now I don't really understand massive superstrings yet, but you seem to think that all of it is refuted with your paragraph?
Upvote
0
This shouldn't be a problem.
EDIT: You mean the rotation of the universe, right? Also, you mean the revolution of the planets?
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
I used a copy of maya, I bet their is a free program out their someplace, i just don't know what it is, sorry.
Upvote
0
MoonLancer
The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
yeah. I mean the planets and universe revolve around the sun and the sun revolves around the earth. Thats what your model is showing, right?
If thats the case, it would be a problem as we would see planets (and stars) in the sky twice a year, once far away, and once again closer close up.
I did not have alot of data from the simulation. It was based on an assumption that each planet takes one earth year to revolve around the sun. I'm pretty sure this is false, But the point was to visually see how the orbits differed from all the planets orbiting the sun. They have very different orbits, and so its not the case we are fooled into thinking the sun is the center of the solar system instead of the the earth through dishonest creation?
So Rich if you can give me data on the speed that the sun moves around the earth and the planets around the sun, I can make a mockup of a geocentric solar system and show you how it compares to the one I feel exists. We can then see the differences in the obits and then we know what kind of data to look for in terms of falsifying echothers ideas.
how does that sound.
*edit*
when i say speed, I mean Revolutions. How many times does x planet revolve around the sun and how many times does the sun revolve around the earth for each year? Also I need to know the distance from each other.
I made a big *funny* mistake. I compared the revolution of the sun around the earth thinking that it took a year for the sun to revolve around the earth, but in your model its a day isnt it? wouldn't the universe be moving erratically with the sun given its speed? Wouldn't we be able to observe this? wouldn't we be able to measure that the universe is moving towards and away every day? anyway i still want to compare, but you need to give me data.
Upvote
0
It requires windows XP. I'll try to download it anyway. I have a windows 98 866 mghrts 256 mb ram Pentium III garbage comp. I want to buy a new one.
I want to create a 3D model of it myself.
I want to create a 3D model of it myself.
Upvote
0
Which peer reviewed journal would be interested in publishing it? It's not like all articles are accepted by the journals themselves.
Upvote
0
Herman Hedning
Hiking is fun
Exactly right! Only articles with sound scientific underpinnings are accepted.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Poll
