Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


Oh and how is stellar parallax explained within the geo-centric view?


Out of interest I did a bit of google-ing and didn’t find anything that supports that

And as far as I can workout stellar parallax can only be explained by a moving earth – otherwise you would have to account for have the stars moving around in all kinds of odd circular motions

Originally posted by racasan
Oh and how is stellar parallax explained within the geo-centric view?

Simple really. In both models the stars are aligned with the sun. So it doesnt matter if the statiionary frame of reference is the sun or the Earth, you will still see exactly the same parallax as an observer here on Earth.

The two models are kinematically identical.

If you dont believe me, this is from a Physics textbook:

"It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho, which would give the same yearly shifts in their apparent positions as parallax gives. Thus if parallax were observed, a flexible Tychonean could adjust the theory to account for it, without undue complexity. What if parallax were not observed? For Copernicus, one only requires that the stars be far enough away for the parallax to be unmeasurable. Therefore the presence or absence of parallax doesn’t force the choice of one type of model over the other. If different stars were to show different amounts of parallax, that would rule out the possibility of them all being on one sphere, but still not really decide between Tycho and Copernicus.

In fact, if we don’t worry about the distant stars, these two models describe identical relative motions of all the objects in the solar system. So the role of observation is not as direct as you might have guessed. There is no bare observation that can distinguish whether Tycho (taken broadly) or Copernicus (taken broadly) is right."

- University of Illinois, Physics 319, Spring 2004, Lecture 03, p. 8

Ah ok but

Originally posted by ArmorOfGod

"It is often said that Tycho’s model implies the absence of parallax, and that Copernicus’ requires parallax. However, it would not be a major conceptual change to have the stars orbit the sun (like the planets) for Tycho,

Which is heliocentric isn’t it?


and what about the motions of the stars in relation to the centre of the milky way (orbiting the galactic centre) – isn’t the motion of our sun (or earth) and the rest of the stars in our galaxy an indication that the earth (or sun) is not the centre of the universe?

Originally posted by racasan
Which is heliocentric isn’t it?

It's both, my friend.

Both models have the stars aligned with [you can say orbit if you like although its not the best word] the sun.

I know it can be a bit of a brainache but its really simple when you get it. When we talk about the two different models, there is no actual difference between the two. All you are doing is choosing a reference frame. Thats why Einstein said:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [co-ordinate system]"

- Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system

[note: when ptolemy is mentioned sometimes in quotes, the speaker is just talking about an Earth centred system, the traditional term for it is Ptolomaic, although Ptolemy's exact model is not the one geocentrists adhere to. We use the neo-Tychonian model, which simply means you shift your reference frame from the sun to the Earth]

Originally posted by racasan
and what about the motions of the stars in relation to the centre of the milky way (orbiting the galactic centre) – isn’t the motion of our sun (or earth) and the rest of the stars in our galaxy an indication that the earth (or sun) is not the centre of the universe?

I have never observed the 'centre of the milky way' or any orbital motions around it.

Please keep in mind we have never sent a satellite outside of our own solar system let alone our galaxy in order to observe what it looks like.

reply to post by ArmorOfGod


I’m sorry I didn’t realise this was dependant on you observing it – I must have missed that memo

Well any way - since we have now got to the heliocentric universe I guess we can use the theory of gravity – right?

We know the mass of the sun and the earth (unless you know something different) and we know what Newton’s theory of gravity tells use about how two such bodies interact – so the earth orbits the sun – right?
en.wikipedia.org...

We have also worked out (by observation) what our galaxy must look like and where most of the mass is – right?

what’s true for our solar system is true for the galaxy – right?

reply to post by racasan

. . . The parallax effect shows that the earth moves on a circular path oh and it shows the stars are at different distances . . .

That would be dependent on knowing the distances involved.
As it is, it is only a guess and if the stars are closer, then the amount of movement of the earth would be smaller than the distance to the sun, so obviously they do a reverse calculation by deciding the earth does orbit the sun and judge the star distances accordingly.

Let me get this straight...Some person believes that heliocetrism (belief that the sun is at the center of the universe and all revolves around the Sun) is a conspiracy to undermine the Church and it's belief in a geocetric universe?

And people agree that the Sun is at the center of the Universe?

Is that what I'm seeing? Or has someone confused helio-centric universe with helio-centric solar system...

reply to post by mr10k

I was saying it does not make sense that the earth would orbit the sun, being just a light plasma, while the earth is iron with a magnetic core.

reply to post by mr10k


i cannot speak for any one else but but my understanding is that the entire solar system ,orbits the sun , the sun rotates on its own axis , and the sun inturn orbits the galactic centre [ of the milky way ] the 26000 year observed precession ,

beyond this i am ignorant - i am an engineer , not an astrophysicist

reply to post by jmdewey60


I assume you didn’t look here
en.wikipedia.org...
when I posted it


this bit explains how the parallax effect is used to find the distance to stars
en.wikipedia.org...

On an interstellar scale, parallax created by the different orbital positions of the Earth causes nearby stars to appear to move relative to more distant stars. By observing parallax, measuring angles and using geometry, one can determine the distance to various objects. When the object in question is a star, the effect is known as stellar parallax.

And if you like sci-fi films and you ever wondered what a parsec is

The parsec (3.26 light-years) is defined as the distance for which the annual parallax is 1 arcsecond.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by mr10k

 

I was saying it does not make sense that the earth would orbit the sun, being just a light plasma, while the earth is iron with a magnetic core.

In your opinion - which weighs more - a ton of feathers or a ton of lead?

reply to post by jmdewey60

I was saying it does not make sense that the earth would orbit the sun, being just a light plasma, while the earth is iron with a magnetic core.

Please note for your future reference, just so you don't persist in making such silly remarks, that weight has nothing to do with which one is more reasonable to be considered the orbiter and which the orbited.

It is mass that makes that distinction relevant, and the Sun wins that 'contest' by almost 330,000 times.

reply to post by jmdewey60


why does it " not make sense " ?

do you accept that the moon orbits the earth - does that make sense to you ?

do you share AoG`s claim that mercury and venus orbit the sun ? [ in his " version " of geocentricism this fallacy is nessescary to explain obervations - but he still needs the " magic roundabout " ]

heliocentricis both explains all sightings and conforms to newtonian physics

i have yet to see a geo-centricist claim that can fulfill both these criteria

reply to post by racasan

I assume you didn’t look here

I read your links.
Professor Grupp went over all that in his lecture.

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by ArmorOfGod

 

I’m sorry I didn’t realise this was dependant on you observing it – I must have missed that memo

Well any way - since we have now got to the heliocentric universe I guess we can use the theory of gravity – right?

We know the mass of the sun and the earth (unless you know something different) and we know what Newton’s theory of gravity tells use about how two such bodies interact – so the earth orbits the sun – right?
en.wikipedia.org...

We have also worked out (by observation) what our galaxy must look like and where most of the mass is – right?

what’s true for our solar system is true for the galaxy – right?

No, we dont know the mass of the sun, or what our galaxy looks like.

And yes, we need to observe something to be sure of it.

Originally posted by racasan
this bit explains how the parallax effect is used to find the distance to stars

Parallax trigonometry involves the presupposition that the Earth orbits the sun. Thats the baseline they use for the trig.

You first need to prove that the Earth orbits the sun in order to be confident that this huge baseline for measuring star distances is valid.

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

why does it " not make sense " ?

do you accept that the moon orbits the earth - does that make sense to you ?

do you share AoG`s claim that mercury and venus orbit the sun ? [ in his " version " of geocentricism this fallacy is nessescary to explain obervations - but he still needs the " magic roundabout " ]

heliocentricis both explains all sightings and conforms to newtonian physics

i have yet to see a geo-centricist claim that can fulfill both these criteria

Well, I've shown you with the claim of relative motion that one criteria is fulfilled (sightings). But you wont accept it. The sooner you accept it the sooner I can explain forces.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Wtf a Professor Grupp?

never mind – tell me what his argument is or send me a link so I can have a look for my self

reply to post by rnaa

Please note for your future reference, just so you don't persist in making such silly remarks, that weight has nothing to do with which one is more reasonable to be considered the orbiter and which the orbited.

It is mass that makes that distinction relevant, and the Sun wins that 'contest' by almost 330,000 times.

Grupp's explanation is that gravity is not based on the size of the object so much as the nature of the structure of it.
One is a plasma field and the other is a crystal where regardless of its size the plasma field has little gravitational force outside its own field.

reply to post by racasan


He's not a professor of Astronomy.
He's an anthropologist specializing in Eastern Philosophy.