A defence of helio-centricism

A defence of helio-centricism – in response to 2 threads here on ATS making geo-centric claims I have decided that a single rebutall of geo-centric nonsense is in order

The claims of helio-centricism are simple – that sol is the centre of the solar system and the rest of the bodies in the solar system orbit relative to sol’s centre point

[ the fact that sol is moving is irrelevant ]

A primer

The basic properties of the earth :

1 – the earth is an oblate spheroid – a fairly simple concept , to whit – the polar circumference of the earth is smaller than the equatorial circumference

A minor detail – but it affects other things

2 – the earth revolves around its north / south axis [ this is a key issue ]

And , wholly Independent of any celestial observations , foucalts pendulum , and mineshaft experiments demonstrate this basic fact

Using celestial observations – the moons observed behaviour confirms this too , to put it simply – only the theory that the earth rotates around its N/S axis at a rate of 1 revolution / 24 hours , and the moon orbits the earths centre point at a rate of 1 revolution ever 28days explains the observed behaviour of the moon

3 the north / south axis of the earth is inclined 23.5 degrees relative to the ecliptic plane , It is this inclination , coupled with the earths orbit around sol which exerts the largest influence on seasonal climate changes

en.wikipedia.org... " target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Chandler wobble demonstrates that the earths inclination is “ fixed “ – yes it does vary as chandlers wobble indicate – but this measurement shows that such are the only deviations in its inclination

this axial tilt [ shown below – along with the earths orbit ] illustrates several of my points




Celestial Observations that support helio-centricism

1 – the observed star field – in brief – due to the orbit of the earth the star field observed in the night sky on 2 days 180 days apart is has both crucial differences , and identical features that demonstrate that the earth is in fact orbiting the sun

The different constellations visible :

constellations visible in janurary

And :

[url=http://www.seasky.org/constellations/constellations-july.html constellations visible in july [/url]

Combined with the constantly visible starts like polaris [ the north star ] which is visible year round from the northern hemisphere

Demonstrate conclusively that the earth traces an elliptical path on the ecliptic plane

2 – retrograde “motion “ of the outer planets

3 – transits of the inner planets [ and the lack of any transits of the outer planets ] ,

3b - occulations , Occulations are similar to transits , where a celestial body passes in front of another

Every single observed occultation , and transit supports the heliocentric model

Other scientific considerations

Newtonian mechanics – on a solar system scale – the errors in Newtonian predictions of the behaviour of objects at a macro level are of no consequent – and are usually smaller than measurement / observational errors

There are no flaws in Newtonian mechanics that would allow a place for geo-centric claims

If geo-centrist wish to be taken seriously – they need to develop a model of the mechanics of the solar system which conforms to every single observed event

No one has even come close

Yet the heliocentric model both explains all observations and is predictive – able to predict future events [ such as the transit of venus . and lunar / solar eclipses ]

Heliocentricism is an holistic theory – that simultaneously explains EVERY observation

Any geo-centric claim , must also be holistic – its no good attempting to attack one single point of the explanations I give above – as it is likely that your “ rebuttal “ will be incompatible with a another point or key issue of physics

And all claims must address EVERY observation , with no special pleadings or “ magic physics “

So – any geo-centrists up to the challenge ?

Lastly , This post is just my efforts – written in my periods of calm which punctuate the chaos at chez ape

It makes sense to me – but my writing style is not always clear to others

Feel free to challenge any point or ask any question / clarification

Due to constrains of time and space – many points are merely assertions – I appologies for this – and I will cite , reference and explain any point in tetail , if an ATS member wishes to challenge it with any logical rebuttal

I will not rise to the bait of “ cite all your claims “

But otherwise , Only the most asinine troll bait will be ignored

look at us,

things we once believed without question, we now debate, sun round the earth or earth round the sun,

just the fact that such things are doubted questioned and debated like this shows how much lack of trust our society has for science,

scientists have become so far out of touch with the common man, that they now look at each other as if from other worlds, at least we have people trying to come to their own conclusions,

but it is true that we can never advance if we must repeat the same old questions every generation,

Ok I will take you up on your challenge.

Firstly let me make the following statement.

There is no kinematic difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

You are simply switching the preferred inertial co-ordinate system from one body to another.

Have a look at this online orrery:

gunn.co.nz.../retrograde.xml

When it loads up, zoom right in on the sun and near planets and slow the speed down to almost nothing.

Then click on the 'follow object' drop down list and select earth. You can see it simply switches the central reference point to the earth but all relationships stay the same. Everything is moving exactly how they did before except now the still reference frame is the earth.

You see all the planets are still orbiting the sun same as they were before and the sun is orbiting the earth.

I will say it again:

There is no kinematic difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

This fact of relative motion immediately renders moot half of your argument including:

- celestial observations
- the observed star field
- retrograde “motion “ of any planets
- transits of the inner planets
- occulations
- steller abberation or parallax (which you didnt actually mention)

....or any other observational factor that involves angles, distances, orbits and timing.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, world renowned astronomer.

Now, I will address the rest of the points in your post that involve forces when you confirm that you understand what I've said here.

Thanks.

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
Ok I will take you up on your challenge.

Firstly let me make the following statement.

There is no kinematic difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

You are simply switching the preferred inertial co-ordinate system from one body to another.

Have a look at this online orrery:

gunn.co.nz.../retrograde.xml

When it loads up, zoom right in on the sun and near planets and slow the speed down to almost nothing.

Then click on the 'follow object' drop down list and select earth. You can see it simply switches the central reference point to the earth but all relationships stay the same. Everything is moving exactly how they did before except now the still reference frame is the earth.

You see all the planets are still orbiting the sun same as they were before and the sun is orbiting the earth.

I will say it again:

There is no kinematic difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

This fact of relative motion immediately renders moot half of your argument including:

- celestial observations
- the observed star field
- retrograde “motion “ of any planets
- transits of the inner planets
- occulations
- steller abberation or parallax (which you didnt actually mention)

....or any other observational factor that involves angles, distances, orbits and timing.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, world renowned astronomer.

Now, I will address the rest of the points in your post that involve forces when you confirm that you understand what I've said here.

Thanks.

What your saying would only apply in a two body system (Sun and Earth ONLY)

Once you introduce the 3rd+ planet, relativity (to be specific, I mean if a person where on each body and viewing the heaven's from each body) shows that things revolve around the Sun WITHIN our Solar System

From a relativity POW, once you go beyond solar system, well, I don't know if for example our solar system revolves around another solar system or vice versa.

But it does seem to be the case that the Universe is filled with Galaxies, and each galaxy has a black hole and everything within the galaxy revolves around the black hole at the center.


Sometimes, I wonder what the level of scientific advancement will be in the year 3000

Originally posted by Confusion42
What your saying would only apply in a two body system (Sun and Earth ONLY)

Once you introduce the 3rd+ planet, relativity (to be specific, I mean if a person where on each body and viewing the heaven's from each body) shows that things revolve around the Sun WITHIN our Solar System

This is incorrect.

If you look at the online orrery I linked to, you can quite clearly see that switching the central co-ordinate system from one body to another renders all observations exactly the same from an observer on any one of the bodies, regardless of how many bodies there are.

You can make the sun the centre, or the Earth..or the moon....or the Hubble space telescope, it matters not...you will still observe exactly the same things from Earth or any other location. All relationships remain exactly the same, whether its a two body system, or 7, or thousands or trillions of bodies.

Anyone who doesnt get this, simply doesnt understand relative motion.

I will wait for the OP to reply.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


appologies AoG , i has been busy . i understand what you say - and it is utter twaddle

regards your opening statement :

There is no kinematic difference between the heliocentric and geocentric models.

so what ? pretending an observed force is absent , does not work in the real world

if , as i assume you are - your are relying on this definition of kinematics , i know of no other

then you are a fantasist - you have disergarded the whole corpus of newtonian physics , just because it disagrees with you

in short - you have invented the " magic roundabout " - the most polite term i can concieve to describe your geocentric earths orbit around an arbitary point with no physics explaination for its behaviour

gravity , , mommentum , kinetic energy , inertia etc etc - are all observed forces whoes behaviour is understood , and can be predicted - and heliocentricism is compatable with all -

even your version of geocentriicism pays lip service to them too - unless you also propose a new explaination for the behaviour of the moon ?

PS - as you pin your claims on the " magic roundabout " i assume you accept the premise that the earth rotates about is N/S south axis ? [ i have to ask - because another poster who i shall deal with shortly - claims it does not ]

also - why geocentricism ? why not venusian centric , or martian centric ?

why cant they have thier " magic roundabout " ???

i hate to make assumptions - but based on your user name , and post history i get the sinking feeling you could be a biblical literalist who is attempting to beat the triangular peg of physics into the round hole of the bible

thats all i have time for at present

EDIT to add :

as the entire scienticic world calculates is space programs according to heliocentric model - :

1 - how dis the venus and mecury probes reach thier targets [ assuming you geocentric claim is true ] relative motion and percieved motion do not help calculate a sucessfull orbital trajectory

2 how does your brand of geo-centricism explain comets behaviour ?

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


How do you explain the observable orbits of Venus and Mercury from earth?

Their retrograde motion proves the heliocentric model.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
How do you explain the observable orbits of Venus and Mercury from earth?

Their retrograde motion proves the heliocentric model.

I think it does.

If you examine his quote:

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, world renowned astronomer.

That's true but, and it's a big but... the Ptolemaic model shows how to predict the retrograde motion by having the planets orbit an empty point in space. The "hole" in the Ptolemaic model is literally a "hole".....why would the planets orbit an empty point in space? They wouldn't, which is why the Ptolemaic model can only predict the observed motion...it can't explain it.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


exactly - its an exercise in handwaving away any observation that contradicts the geo-centric claim

hence my dismissal of it as the " magic roundabout " - the idiotic notion of a celestial body running round in circle with no causality - just because it " has to " ore else the geocentric claim collapses under its own absurdity

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
so what ? pretending an observed force is absent

Hold onto your horses there friend.

If you will re-read my post, I say quite clearly I am dealing with one particular subject at the moment. That of visual OBERVATION.

The point I am making is that switching the perspective from the sun to the Earth as the centre of the system does not produce any differences whatsoever in what we visually observe from Earth.

This rules out any appeals to simple visual observations such as:

- celestial observations
- the observed star field
- retrograde “motion “ of any planets
- transits of the inner planets
- occulations
- steller abberation or parallax (which you didnt actually mention)
- Phases of the moon, Venus or any other celestial body. (which you didnt actually mention)

....or any other observational factor that involves angles, distances, orbits and timing.

At the end of my post I said I will deal with FORCES when you concede this point. Lets just take this one stage at a time yes?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by ArmorOfGod

 

How do you explain the observable orbits of Venus and Mercury from earth?

Their retrograde motion proves the heliocentric model.

Incorrect.

The orbits of venus and mercury are exactly the same regardless of which body you use as the central frame of reference.

Again, I urge you to look at the online orrery.

ORRERY

When it loads up, zoom right in on the sun and near planets and slow the speed down to almost nothing.

Then click on the 'follow object' drop down list and select earth. You can see it simply switches the central reference point to the earth but all relationships stay the same. Everything is moving exactly how they did before except now the still reference frame is the earth.

You see all the planets are still orbiting the sun same as they were before and the sun is orbiting the earth.

You see exactly the same things from Earth regardless of the central frame of reference.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
[That's true but, and it's a big but... the Ptolemaic model shows how to predict the retrograde motion by having the planets orbit an empty point in space. The "hole" in the Ptolemaic model is literally a "hole".....why would the planets orbit an empty point in space? They wouldn't, which is why the Ptolemaic model can only predict the observed motion...it can't explain it.

Fred Hoyle meant Ptolomaic as a simple reference to central Earth (geocentric) system.

The actual model we use is the neo-Tychonian model.

That model is the one on the orrery link I showed you where you simply switch the central frame of reference to the Earth. It's simply a change in perspective. The planets are still orbiting the sun.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


i refuse to discuss any claim that relys on " the magic roundabout " and dismisall of newtonian physics without any causality for the mahic roundabout , or any reason why the observed premises of newtonian physics should be dismissed

the reason i replied as i did is simple :

you ignored my instruction , i wrote :

Any geo-centric claim , must also be holistic – its no good attempting to attack one single point of the explanations I give above – as it is likely that your “ rebuttal “ will be incompatible with a another point or key issue of physics

And all claims must address EVERY observation , with no special pleadings or “ magic physics “

you attempted to throw out newtonian physics and slide the magic roundabout in

and i refuse to engage such shenanigants

besides my claim was all obervations are compatible with heliocentricism and no observations falseify it

further i warned that no majic physics or ignorting other scientific observations [ i specifically mentioned newtonian physics was allowed

but you went ahead

so answer the questions i posted in my previous reply

Are the geocentric and heliocentric systems identical kinematically......yes or no?

A simple question.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


confirm that your definition of kinematic is the same as mine - i have to ask because i have already had to deal with other poster using fantasy defenitions

and re read my answer -

its irrelevant IF you have to sunsitute newtonian physics with the magic roundabout

unless you start answering my question - i shall offer you no further replies

i have better things to do than entertain a fantasist who seems determined to extract a hollow " victiory " - gained by ignoring reality

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
confirm that your definition of kinematic is the same as mine - i have to ask because i have already had to deal with other poster using fantasy defenitions

Yes I affirm that is the definition we are using.

So are the two models kinematically identical?

I will explain about forces shortly, but even if I didnt, the two models are still kinematically identical agreed?

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


no i do not agree

i refuse to agree with your claim - you present no supporting evidence for an geocentric claim , and refuse to address the " magic roundabout " till i kowtow to you - well go FYS

the OP that i posted cleary stated that all observations supported the lelio-centric model and attempting to shoe horn them into geocentricism required special pleading

you rolled up and attempted to ram the " magic roundabout " down our throats

now for the last time - present your defence of geo-centricism

mine was that ALL obervations and physics were compatible with heliocentricism - and that was it

now present your case - all of it - not some drip - drip BS that demands i agree with your claims inch by inch

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod
Fred Hoyle meant Ptolomaic as a simple reference to central Earth (geocentric) system.

It sounds to me like a reference to the Ptolemaic model is a reference to the Ptolemaic model. You can't use his quote and then claim he meant something other than what he said. Is that what you're trying to do here?

The actual model we use is the neo-Tychonian model.

You can use any model you want, as long as you don't work for NASA in the role of trying to send satellites to other parts of the solar system or something like that. But you're not trying to claim that's the model Hoyle was referring to, are you?

And if you want a job at NASA working with satellites, then you can't use either model (heliocentric versus geocentric) and they aren't equivalent:

www.uwgb.edu...

in a geocentric model, we have to explain how the sun, which is vastly larger than the earth, circles the earth. In the heliocentric model, there's a point about a million miles from earth where an object can remain fixed with respect to both bodies. It's not a theoretical abstraction - spacecraft have been placed there. They need a little fuel to maintain a stable orbit because of the gravitational effects of the moon and other planets, but beyond that, they remain in place. In a geocentric model the spacecraft just hang there, neither falling toward earth nor into the sun. Why is that? The difference does have physical significance, and the Ptolemaic theory is wrong in a "meaningful physical sense."

You see, Hoyles perspective was an Earth-based view. Once you start sending satellites around the solar system, his quote you referenced pretty much falls apart, because at that point you have to do more than just explain observed motions; you also need to account for different gravitational forces at different points in the solar system.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


bingo - you got it

percieved observation using a flawed model [ either my heliocentric claim , or AoGs geocentric claim ] cannot be used to launch a probe sucessfully from earth to venus

the model underpinning your calculations - be it helio or geo centric has to be correct

no space agency has ever admitted to using a geo-centric model

and the soviets launced the first probe to venus - ts navigation to venus was sucessfull - but it failed on contact with the planet - as its environmental protection used a flawed model of venusian conditions

the sovietsregieme never claimed to embrace a geo-centric model - rather they adaopted helocentricism from 19th century russiand , european and american scientist

so - if geo-centricism is true - how did thier 1st venus probe make contact with venus`s atmosphere suscessfully - only to have its environmental protection fail ?

1 - helio-centricism is corect

2 - the soviets embraced geo-centricism - yet failed to capitalise of the " fact " that they had adopteded the correct model for propaganda purposes - that make any sense ?

the soviet space program attempted to claim that thier mission to put the first woman in orbit was a event which demonstrated soviet superiority over the west

hint - the sex of the payload is irrelevant - you need to be able to lift the mass of the payload to orbit - physics does not care if the payload has no y chromoseme

yet - if geocentricism is correct - the soviets never sought to capitalise on the fact that they had the correct model of the solar system [ a truely worthy victory in the space race ]

rather " celebrated victories of chromosomes and launching missions with a man sitting on another mans knee - ya know important stuff

go figure

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by ArmorOfGod

 

no i do not agree

i refuse to agree with your claim - you present no supporting evidence for an geocentric claim , and refuse to address the " magic roundabout " till i kowtow to you - well go FYS

the OP that i posted cleary stated that all observations supported the lelio-centric model and attempting to shoe horn them into geocentricism required special pleading

you rolled up and attempted to ram the " magic roundabout " down our throats

now for the last time - present your defence of geo-centricism

mine was that ALL obervations and physics were compatible with heliocentricism - and that was it

now present your case - all of it - not some drip - drip BS that demands i agree with your claims inch by inch

You ask me for a defence of geocentrism but that is not the point of the thread.

This thread is a defence of heliocentrism.

You have attempted to defend heliocentrism with kinematic evidence.

I'm saying that you will see the same thing kinematically in the geocentric model.

I am proving that ALL observations are compatible with BOTH systems, without any special pleading....because they involve the same kinematics but just with a different reference point. If this is incorrect, then please show which bare observation you will see in your model and not in mine? Retrograde? Parallax? What?

This is the first point of my argument. After we settle this point I will move onto forces.