Geocentricity and Stellar Parallax

[BrainHertz]

I think i get what your saying now, but i don't think thats what riches model is showing. The way i see it, ether the planets loop or we see should be seeing celestial bodies eclipse each other when they clearly don't.

Thanks for trying to help though, but i don't think i will get it, unless i see the 3rd rotation. that video rich showed didn't show much.

I can't say for sure that Richard has stated what I said directly, but he did say that he was talking about the modified Tychonic system, and what I described is the Tychonic system. It's actually geometrically identical to the Copernican system, but with a shifted (and daily rotating...) reference frame.

I take the "modified" part to mean that it's fixed to take care of elliptical orbits and the stars... do whatever stars need to do to fix up the parallax.

The problem with the Tychonic system (once all of this is taken care of) is not so much that the predicted celestial movements differ from observations, but that there is no known mechanism for it to work; it requires gravity to somehow not apply to a particular selction of objects and have some other mysterious and otherwise unobserved (and unmodeled) force to be at work.

Apart from which, gravitation explains the more, er, conventional view together with movements of spacecraft and any other incidental celestial bodies.

If the Dr. Bouw linked earlier has any explanation for all of this, I don't see it anywhere. All I see is some handwaving and mathematics that looks like it was intended to blow smoke rather than provide enlightenment.

Anyway... peace

 

[theFijian]

He's a biblicists and has an M.S., Ph. D. in astronomy and a B.S. in astrophysics.

I presume he became a Biblicist after he got his qualifications?

 

[Chalnoth]

It takes more than a Ph.D. to be a scientist. You also have to do research. And it looks like Bouw descended into quackery long ago.

 

[FishFace]

RichardT, what does your geocentricity predict that conventional gravity does not? As large and detailed a list as possible, please.

 

[BrainHertz]

RichardT, what does your geocentricity predict that conventional gravity does not? As large and detailed a list as possible, please.

Well, not wishing to beat up on Richard too much here... (I'm kind of upset about Dr. Bouw and his cohorts promoting this deceptive nonsense, though) but I'll start with:

It predicts that geosynchronous satellites should fall out of the sky.

I'd be fascinated to see an explanation for this one (you might want to actually email Dr. Bouw and ask if he has an answer for this). The only previous explanation I've seen from a geocentrist website is that they're held up by magnets (no, really).

The Newtonian explanation, by the way, is that the orbital period at that specific altitude is exacly the time it takes for the Earth to make one rotation on its axis, and so they stay at the same spot above the Earth...

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Well, not wishing to beat up on Richard too much here... (I'm kind of upset about Dr. Bouw and his cohorts promoting this deceptive nonsense, though) but I'll start with:

It predicts that geosynchronous satellites should fall out of the sky.

I'd be fascinated to see an explanation for this one (you might want to actually email Dr. Bouw and ask if he has an answer for this). The only previous explanation I've seen from a geocentrist website is that they're held up by magnets (no, really).

.

He does sort of. IIRC it is some handwaving about distant rotating masses generating an apparent centrifugal force that just balances gravity but IIRC he avoids explaining how it happens to hold geostationary satellites in exactly the orbits predicted by Newtonian Mechanics and a rotating earth (with a small correction for GR).

 

[RichardT]

I presume he became a Biblicist after he got his qualifications?

You're right, he actually was an atheist when he got his Ph.D.

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/bouw_bio.html

"And so it was that at age eighteen I entered the University of Rochester as an astrophysics major with a minor in astronomy. During my studies at the U. of R. I became an atheist. After all, evolution and the Bible don't agree, regardless of what theistic evolutionists may say. Candidly, it was such compromisers who convinced me the Bible was wrong and science was right. After all, if science makes a proclamation (such as the earth is not at the center of the universe or that life came along through an evolutionary sequence) and many years later some theologian comes along and by some mysterious manipulation of the meanings of the Bible's wordings concludes: "Aha, the Bible knew it all along," then what did the Bible have to contribute to human knowledge? The frontiers of knowledge obviously did not lie in the study of the Bible."

 

[Loudmouth]

You're right, he actually was an atheist after he got his Ph.D.

http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/bouw_bio.html

"And so it was that at age eighteen I entered the University of Rochester as an astrophysics major with a minor in astronomy. During my studies at the U. of R. I became an atheist. After all, evolution and the Bible don't agree, regardless of what theistic evolutionists may say. Candidly, it was such compromisers who convinced me the Bible was wrong and science was right. After all, if science makes a proclamation (such as the earth is not at the center of the universe or that life came along through an evolutionary sequence) and many years later some theologian comes along and by some mysterious manipulation of the meanings of the Bible's wordings concludes: "Aha, the Bible knew it all along," then what did the Bible have to contribute to human knowledge? The frontiers of knowledge obviously did not lie in the study of the Bible."

According to that article he converted soon after and never did research. He quickly joined the Creation Research Society after his conversion. Not only that, but his geocentricity is based on his religious convictions, not the evidence:

Again I asked the Lord: "What must I forget next?"

The Lord answered that prayer less than a year later. Early 1976, the late Professor Harold Armstrong, then editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly, wrote a note therein about the diversity of opinions and views in the Creationist movement. To illustrate the breadth of those views, he mentioned a Dutch-Canadian named Walter van der Kamp (photo at left) as an extreme case where a Creationist advocated the literality of Scripture to the point of a stationary earth. Now as an undergraduate at the University of Rochester in Rochester, New York, I'd taken enough relativity theory to know that neither heliocentrism nor geocentricity could be proven or disproven, and so I fired off a letter to Walter asking, in effect, "which Scriptures?"

I'm afraid that Walter sent more philosophy than Scriptures, but he did mention Psalms 73 and 104:5. I judged them rather weak insofar as evidence for geocentricity goes, so I set forth on a three-week, six-days-per-week, sixteen-hours-per-day study to determine the truth of the matter insofar as the Bible was concerned. Because at the time I didn't know where the Scriptures were to be found, I had to flounder around in the "original" Hebrew. At the end of the three weeks the best I could determine that the Scriptures were "probably" geocentric. My analysis was printed in Walter's Bulletins of the Tychonian Society, issue No. 13, in 1976. Since then the Scriptural case has been greatly solidified. Again I prayed, "What must I forget next"?​

 

[BrainHertz]

Richard,
do you have a response for the question I posed above?

I'll be more specific: What is the mechanism by which geosynchronous satellites stay up if the Earth is not rotating?

 

[Pesto]

I'd like Richard to address post 188.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

I'd like Richard to address post 188.

I'd like Richard to address my questions from post 80.

 

[Pesto]

80
188
225

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

80
188
225

151

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

He does sort of. IIRC it is some handwaving about distant rotating masses generating an apparent centrifugal force that just balances gravity but IIRC he avoids explaining how it happens to hold geostationary satellites in exactly the orbits predicted by Newtonian Mechanics and a rotating earth (with a small correction for GR).

Wouldn't this "counter mass" force have a massive effect on non-geosync satellites though? Sputnik 1 had an orbit of 96 minutes, now if that "counter mass" force existed it would gradually pull sputnik out away from the Earth.

 

[Pesto]

Okay, something odd is happening. I keep getting the same post with a different post number from my links.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Wouldn't this "counter mass" force have a massive effect on non-geosync satellites though? Sputnik 1 had an orbit of 96 minutes, now if that "counter mass" force existed it would gradually pull sputnik out away from the Earth.

One would think so. I have also asked about astronauts going to the moon. They see the earth rotating under them. Does this mean they are starting to spin around the fixed earth each day? What is accelerating them in this circular path? I don't think that was put in the programs to used calculate their flight paths to the moon. I am pretty sure NASA considers the earth to be rotating daily and the moon to be rotating around the earth every 27.3 days not a little more than once each day.

What is the force the puts the astronauts into faster and faster orbits around the earth as they spiral outward so that by the time they reach the moon they are traveling about 2,300,000 km each day on their circular path.

If there is such a force why doesn't it affect geostationary satellites and why doesn't it have to be taken into account in a big way when when retrograde satellites are put into orbit?

I also asked a long time ago about Voyager 1 which in the geocentric model is now making a circle of about 3.8 light days circumference around the earth each day. How did that come about? What accelerated Voyager to superluminal velocities relative to the earth? How can anything have a superluminal velocity relative to the earth. If it doesn't have a superluminal velocity how do we see it spinning around the earth each day?

 

[BrainHertz]

One would think so. I have also asked about astronauts going to the moon. They see the earth rotating under them. Does this mean they are starting to spin around the fixed earth each day? What is accelerating them in this circular path? I don't think that was put in the programs to used calculate their flight paths to the moon. I am pretty sure NASA considers the earth to be rotating daily and the moon to be rotating around the earth every 27.3 days not a little more than once each day.

What is the force the puts the astronauts into faster and faster orbits around the earth as they spiral outward so that by the time they reach the moon they are traveling about 2,300,000 km each day on their circular path.

If there is such a force why doesn't it affect geostationary satellites and why doesn't it have to be taken into account in a big way when when retrograde satellites are put into orbit?

I also asked a long time ago about Voyager 1 which in the geocentric model is now making a circle of about 3.8 light days circumference around the earth each day. How did that come about? What accelerated Voyager to superluminal velocities relative to the earth? How can anything have a superluminal velocity relative to the earth. If it doesn't have a superluminal velocity how do we see it spinning around the earth each day?

Not to mention the slingshot effect used to accelerate the Voyager craft linearly. If the planets aren't orbiting due to gravitation, where did the energy for the linear acceleration come from?

 

[BrainHertz]

Ping...

Richard, if you're still around and interested in the subject there's a few people also willing to discuss.

 

[RichardT]

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

The rotation rate never changes, the seasons change with the sun's 365 day revolution that does not resemble an elliptical orbit.

and how it can be instantly changed out to the farthest star by massive earthquakes.

I don't know yet, some Geocentrists have said that the earth actually does move in the case of an earthquake and have found scriptural support for this position.

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.

I'll check it out.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

The rotation rate never changes, the seasons change with the sun's 365 day revolution that does not resemble an elliptical orbit.

The rotation rate of the earth does change and these changes can be measured using very long baseline interferometry. It fluctuates slightly with seasons and the rate is gradually slowling due to tidal interactiions with the moon. I don't see how these changes can be explained in a geocentric model as the angular momentum of the universe as it whizzes around the earth each day would be immense almost beyond calculation and it should not be possible for it to speed up or slow down or do geocentrists dump the conservation of angular momentum along with the other parts of science they dump?

I don't know yet, some Geocentrists have said that the earth actually does move in the case of an earthquake and have found scriptural support for this position.

I see. So it is not relevant whether the movement of the earth can be measured or observed but only if you can find "scriptural support".

I'll check it out.

It seems to me that you have been saying that for quite a while now. I brought these back up on this thread. What about the question of astronauts going to the moon. Why do they see the earth rotating beneath them?