geo/helio-centric

mtrotto7287 · Oct 4, 2004

hey- my astronomy class is doing a mock trial---> HELIOCENTRICITY VS. GEOCENTRICIY Ive been put on the goeocentric side(church), and all we have to do is cast doubt on the heliocentric view, as well as show the geocentric model as a decent alternative any strong arguments that can be made in my favor sould be appreciated- also if there is any way parallax can be attributed to a geocentric model, please let me know thanks

Saiph · Oct 4, 2004

What time period are you in for the trial? If its pre 1800's, parrallax is a major factor (wasn't detected until then!) so Heliocentricity couldn't claim it if it's before that time period. I'll get back to you more later tonight, hopefully. This is intriguing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mtrotto7287 · Oct 4, 2004

this is kind of based on galileo's trial however... we are actually allowed to call "witnesses" from any time period up to the present (obviously not future, or we could simply argue that geocentricity was proven with no objections) HOWEVER... we are not allowed to use any information gathered from OUTSIDE the earth- only observations made FROM earth technically, we should be able to stick the heliocentrists with Einstein's relativity, since it leads to the fact that there is NO WAY of knowing for CERTAIN which point of view is correct, as long as they are both equivalent the witnesses THEY are using, as far as i know are as follows: Kepler, Copenicus, Galileo(of course), Newton, Pope Urban VIII, and a Heliocentric Expert we've got(so far): Cardinal Bellarmine(with some scriptures to back him up {:OP) , Einstein, Ptolemy, a Celestial Sphere Expert, and (my personal role) the Geo/Heliocentricity Expert im quite confident that we could win this trial I APPRECIATE YOUR INTEREST, THANK YOU

Saiph · Oct 4, 2004

::Shakes head::: The relativity arguement tanks once the point that acceleration isn't arbitrary (i.e. you know you're moving, and not the other guy, when you feel acceleration). And the earth accelerates in a circle as it orbits the sun. Of course, your opponents may not realize that. But, things to point out for Geocentrism: Difficulty of parralax. Research the errors possible in it, especially those due to atmospheric interference (limits seeing to ~1 arc second). Now, those errors can be overcome by various experimental methods, but your job would be to point them out. If the "defense" can't counter, you've got a point on your side. I.e. it won't work if they've done their homework. Aristotelean metaphysics: The heavens are perfect, the earth is imperfect, and the moon a transition in between (very circular, but visibly blemished). Perfect things move in perfect ways, circles and/or combination's of circles. Also use his observation of elemental motion (earth falls, water resides atop it, air and fire rise) to explain why the earth should be in the center. Call upon Quintessence (the fifth element) for the heavens. And since fire rises, why would it reside in the middle (i.e. bottom) of the solar system? Basically, use this viewpoint to counter Newtons. You'll lose (Newtons is more predictive, powerful, and general) but perhaps you'll stump your opponents. Point out that Ptolemy's system is just as accurate as Copernicus's (or rather that Cop's is only as accurate as Ptol's). Also that Copernicus still has epicycles and such, and it still uses circular orbits (thus the need for epicycles). Unless, of course, you're doing Heliocentrism in general, not just Copernican Heliostatics (a more accurate name). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Maddad · Oct 5, 2004

mtrotto7287 If the Sun were the center of the universe, then we would expect to see a difference in the speed of light through the ether depending on which side of the Sun the Earth was on. Since we see no difference in the speed of light at any time of year, we have to conclude that the Earth is at the center, not the Sun. This puzzling fact was used by Einstein in his development of special relativity. SR is complex though, so Occam's Razor suggests that the better interpretation is that we are at the center. This does away with the need for SR.

mtrotto7287 · Oct 5, 2004

saiph- thanks for the suggestions, i am pretty sure that the other side is not going to be ready to counter some of the arguments- afterall, this is our first topic of the year, we are all amateurs when it comes to astronomy ill let you guys know how things turn out- and i'll probably be needing some confirmation on a few things- peace

Saiph · Oct 5, 2004

creepy maddad. You've got the logic down pat! Just creepy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alokmohan · Oct 6, 2004

In the present era geocentric is only historic idea.

Maddad · Oct 6, 2004

Saiph Hey, I've posted more than 9,000 times here. I have to get it right at least once.

Saiph · Oct 6, 2004

Yeah, well, I was about ready to lay into you until I noticed it was you who posted. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

heyscottie · Oct 6, 2004

Of course, you could refute some of Galileo's evidence -- the fact that he observed moons circling Jupiter led to a great validation of Copernicus. But why should moons circling Jupiter matter if Jupiter is also circling Earth? After all, if Jupiter is circling Earth, then its moons are also circling Earth. Earth is still, in effect, the center of their motion through the sky. That might be enough to stump a few people for a minute or three, as well. By the way, I'm quite curious -- what is your major, and where are you studying? I find this mock trial fascinating.

Saiph · Oct 6, 2004

Ahh, good point. The reason it helped copernicus (and wasn't a moot point) was because it showed, in an irrefutable way, that things can orbit something else besides earth (which was never observed prior). While they may, in geocentric models, ultimately orbit earth, it sets a nasty precedence against the concept that earth is unrivaled in it's "uniqueness". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

CalliArcale · Oct 6, 2004

Precisely. While the moons of Jupiter do nothing to prove that Jupiter itself does not orbit the Earth, they do shoot down one of the biggest arguments the Church used to use in favor of geocentricity. They didn't just say that Jupiter went around the Earth, after all. They said that everything did. It was fundamental to their cosmology that everything orbit the Earth in different "spheres". Interesting tidbit: "the music of the spheres" does not, in fact, refer to the planets, or at least it didn't originally. It referred to concentric crystal spheres in which each planet was believed to be embedded, which were believed to resonate, making music. (That notion actually goes back to the ancient Greeks, and even survived in some forms after the general acceptance of heliocentricity.) Each sphere was another layer of the heavens, and if you passed through all of them you'd reach the celestial sphere, where the stars are, and if you passed that, you'd reach God. On the other hand, if you dug down towards the center of the Earth, you'd reach Hell. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> This is all depicted in Dante's Divine Comedy (which has three parts: the famed Inferno, and also Purgatorio and Paradisio). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

newtonian · Oct 6, 2004

mtrotto7287- Hi! You posted concerning evidence for geocentricity (=everything revolving aroung earth): "Cardinal Bellarmine(with some scriptures to back him up {:OP) , Einstein, Ptolemy, a Celestial Sphere Expert, and (my personal role) the Geo/Heliocentricity Expert. What Scriptures might those be? I am not aware of any.

heyscottie · Oct 7, 2004

Saiph: Well, sure. But it can be used to help refute Galileo. It may be enough to stump those radical fundamentalist heliocentrists for a while. After all, we are ultimately fighting a losing battle here -- the best we can hope to do is throw up a lot of smoke, mirrors, and lasers, and hope the opponents are impressed and baffled long enough to make the difference. By the way, the geocentrists should make sure it is understood that the burden of proof lies with the heliocentrists -- after all, geocentricity was a time-honored fact for many hundreds (thousands) of years. Scott

mtrotto7287 · Oct 7, 2004

heyscottie--- i am studting at fairport highschool- not yet sure about my major though- also thanks for the suggestion newtonian- the scriptures do not REALLY PROVE geocentricity, our side of the trial simply felt like being jerks, and saying that galileo went against the meaning of those verses--- ---really galileo only goes against a COMPLETELY LITERAL interpretation of those verses, and there are obviously scriptures that were NOT MEANT to be taken literally -- by the way, they speak of things like "the sun standing still" or the moon "rising and setting" or "the earth will stand still and not be moved"--- we just thought these might stump them, afterall Pope Urban VIII is one of their witnesses ill keep you posted on the outcome of the trial, or any successes our side has thanks again everyone

Saiph · Oct 7, 2004

They can indeed be helped, and smoke and mirrors are the only real option. Perhaps with lasers they can "win". I was just throwing out the reason because it's a good question, and people here deserve to know the answer as well. Besides, one should be fully informed of both sides, especially in a mock trial like this. Knowing how your enemy will refute your answer (if they do at all) will help you to prepare your smoke and mirrors routine to obscure your loss. Or let you know which issues you are going to lose on (though you should still present something, so you don't weaken your position by lack of evidence). The burden of proof thing is also a very good point. The weight of time and tradition (and generations of intellegent humans) is on the side of geocentricity. Heliocentricity has only, what, 400 years? Pah! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Mrotto: Heres a question for you. How are you going to counter the Heliocentric arguements. A lot of whats been bandied about here has been possible things to stump them. They'll have a few zinger's themselves. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mtrotto7287 · Oct 7, 2004

saiph-- sorry but ive got to go real quick ill present some of our "refutations." so to speak, when i get back, or if not today, then tomorrow peace

mtrotto7287 · Oct 8, 2004

stevehw-- that's exactly the argument we have presented to the otyher side- they can argue that geocentricity is not the only model, but they cannot argue that it is not an acceptable alternative we really had them stumped yesterday!!! Their witness was a geo/heliocentric expert, and we asked them: "if the earth is moving, why can't we feel it?" this led them right into our trap--- they explained that you can only feel ACCELERATED motion, not uniform motion--- we followed this up by asking whether or not the helio. model followed Kepler's elliptical orbit system, their response was yes---here's what killed them: we pointed that according to Kepler, the Earth must move slower on one side of the sun than the other, pointing to none other but, thats right- ACCELERATED MOTION- we asked again: "Why cant we feel the earth moving??" they were stumped later on, they called up their retrograde motion expert- he showed an animation of how retrograde motion is explained for BOTH helio and geocentric models--- shortly after, he stated that retrograde motion was evidence of heliocentricity--- "No it's not," we argued, "it simply shows that heliocentricity simplifies the explanation of this phenomenon- you cannot deny that the geocentric model also takes this into consideration- after all, you JUST SHOWED US that BOTH models can provide for this movement!"-----again, they were silenced ill keep you guys posted on future events in this trial- the next "session" is in about 3 hours later

newtonian · Oct 8, 2004

mtrotto - Well, of course, basic observation shows the earth does not move and the sun does move - how can you argue with what you can actually see? Did you actually quote chapter and verse? Documentation always makes an argument stronger. And many can easily be misled by wrong interpretation of Scripture. However, you are correct that the Catholic insistence on the geocentric model is based on interpretation and also correct that the Bible does not actually state the geocentric view, or that everything revolves around the earth. If you want to win, you will not want the opposition to know the following: "Pope Urban VIII and the theologians of the Roman Inquisition did in fact condemn the Copernican theory, claiming that it was contrary to the Bible. Galileo's adversaries referred to Joshua's statement, "Sun, stand thou still," which, according to their reading, was to be understood literally. (Joshua 10:12, King James Version) But does the Bible really contradict the Copernican theory? Not at all. The contradiction lay between science and an obviously incorrect interpretation of Scripture. That was how Galileo saw the matter. He wrote to a pupil: "Even though Scripture cannot err, its interpreters and expositors can, in various ways. One of these, very serious and very frequent, would be when they always want to stop at the purely literal sense." Any serious student of the Bible would have to agree. [Footnote: An honest reader will readily admit that a statement about the sun standing still in the sky is not meant as a scientific analysis but as a simple observation about how things appeared from the standpoint of human eyewitnesses. Astronomers, too, often speak of the rising and setting of the sun, moon, planets, and stars. They do not mean that these heavenly bodies literally revolve around the earth but, rather, that they appear to move across our sky.] Galileo went further. He claimed that two

Saiph · Oct 8, 2004

congrats. Now, hopefully, your teacher will be able to explain those "errors in heliocentricity" to the class. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

Saiph · Oct 8, 2004

careful there steve. The earth is a high velocity system, and we experience more gravity from the sun than the earth. The reason it isn't apparent is the acceleration is pretty small. The planets, excluding perturbations, do orbit in a plane. GR does state that the apex of their elliptical orbit will precess about the sun though. However, the effects you listed are minor decreases in accuracy. Hardly significant over small time scales (as with any error, it's cumulative over time, so yeah it's going to be off 10,000 years from now). Not only that, but the small innacuracies created by excluding these conditions are basically insignificant compared to the purpose of most calculations. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

mtrotto7287 · Oct 8, 2004

stevehw---- IS the heliocentric model the simplest of them???- This is one of the arguments that was made today, and, thinking on my feet, i stumped them again if you think about it, the geocentric model is the easiest, simplest one of the two. When you were a little kid, and you saw the sunrising, or the moonfalling, what did you first think? I know that I thought nothing out of the ordinary was going on- just sat there and said: "O wow, look at that. The sun is moving, and so is the moon." Later on in life, during a solar eclipse, i figured: "the moon must be passing up the sun," and needed little more explanation. I did not need to learn about physics, or math, or any science to understand these things- i simply accepted the things that i saw happening. though geocentrism may not be easily understood within the boundaries of scientific law- they are quite easily SEEN, and therefore believed BEFORE we learn of these things i cant really express it the way i am thinking it, but i think you'll get the point---Anyways, it worked on them, so thats cool

mtrotto7287 · Oct 8, 2004

the trial is not over yet, but i decided to get an early start on the CLOSING STATEMENT for our side. What do you think of what i have so far (note:we will revise it further when we are closer to the end of the trial): :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury(that is, the FUTURE jury- we will all deside which side we think presented the best arguments after the trial), it is to all of you that i direct my words on this day. We have gone through and listened thouroughly to what each side has had to say- arguments have been strong on BOTH sides; testimony given by some of the most well-respected, and widely accepted men on earth: geniuses rangeing from Einstein to Kepler, as well as the man being tried today, Galileo. It is our side's hope that you will push aside all ego in this important decision, and admit the truth: that the Geocentric model, and the Heliocentric model of the universe are both acceptable models of the solar-system. Neither one can be proven, and yet, neither one can be disproven. We must, then, accept that both of these models are EQUIVALENT- they are two different answers to the same question. Without travelling outside our Universe, we will NEVER know what is truly happening. We will only be able to point out different points of view. I dare any of you today, even witnesses from my side of the trial, to argue that one and ONLY ONE of these models work. If each side were in their own canoe, and all we could see is the other side drifting towards us, how would we know which canoe was moving? We could both argue that our particular canoe is idle, and we could also argue that our canoe is moving. It is this same notion that brought us to this trial. We, the prosecution, are content with accepting both alternatives, and any other that is derived- so long as it is eq

Saiph · Oct 8, 2004

Heliocentric is the easiest when you have to match more detailed observations. While Ptolemaic geocentricity requires many, many epicycles to get as accurate as Keplars laws, or just to explain retrograde motion (which it fails to explain why it always happens at opposition...) Heliocentric models (especially Keplar's version) require very little. It's also more consistent (really a direct consequence of) with Newtonian Mechanics (especially the law of gravitation). I also think you're stretching your closing statement a lot. I thought your position was to prove heliocentrism false, not that geocentrism is equivelant (which makes it sound like you're defending your views instead of attacking Heliocentrism). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

geo/helio-centric

mtrotto7287

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Maddad

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

Maddad

Guest

Saiph

Guest

heyscottie

Guest

Saiph

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

newtonian

Guest

heyscottie

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

newtonian

Guest

Saiph

Guest

Saiph

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

mtrotto7287

Guest

Saiph

Guest

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page