# Take the Geocentrism Challenge!

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

#### lunatio_gordin

##### Guest
Personally, i really love that theory. It's very awing...

I

#### igorsboss

##### Guest
The Doppler shift technique could theoretically detect this same same ellipse in intergalactic light. Parallax may be sufficient.

S

#### steve01

##### Guest
Wouldn't the launch window for Mars be proof. . . if Earth is at the centre of everything, then we could launch a probe at any point of the Martian orbit and the probe would get there in a uniform period of time . . . . so therefore we could prove earth is not at the centre by launching a probe at Mar's Apogee and another one at Perigee - assuming people trust the probes are travelling at the same velocity . . . there would be a vast difference in the time it would take for the probe to get there . . .

I

#### igorsboss

##### Guest
According to Geocentrism, Mars would "arrange itself" to be sometimes closer, and sometimes further away from Earth, so this would not be considered proof.

S

#### steve01

##### Guest
Could they really justify this much "arranging" ?!??!<br />Mars<br />Distance from Earth<br /> Minimum 55.7 million km<br /> Maximum 401.3 million km<br />

I

#### igorsboss

##### Guest
<font color="yellow">Could they really justify this much "arranging" ?</font><br /><br />Yup. You're appealing to simplicity here, and that isn't enough to form a proof, according to the challenge rules.<br /><br />You've demonstrated the motion exists, but you haven't proved your point.<br /><br />...I didn't say I agree with it... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

S

#### steve01

##### Guest
Sometimes I have a problem with letting go . . . I guess we should just ask the CAI what would be sufficient . . . Even if it were possible to view the solar system from above or below-possibly proving heliocentrism, would they still find a reason disclaim what they see?

L

#### larper

##### Guest
The parallax is simply caused by THOSE suns going around THEIR earths. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

L

#### lunatio_gordin

##### Guest
Ah, but everything, not just the things in our solar system, go around the earth in geocentrism. I can't say if they still believe in the "Glass star sphere" around the edge of the solar system. (terra system?)

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
Then why is there a distance relationship? Are all the stars the same distance form their primary planet? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

L

#### larper

##### Guest
Yep. God created all solar systems just like our own. Once he had a working model, he duplicated it throughout the cosmos. Excluding the actual people themselves, of course. They only exist here. <br /><br />Basically, he took 6 days to get it right here, then settled on the 5 day work week everywhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
actually, those points are stationary relative to the earth sun system... so they won't change in either case.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

L

#### lunatio_gordin

##### Guest
what about some other planet's lagrange points then?

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
You can set up a system of motion that will properly explain any planetary motion.<br /><br />The catch is: Newtons version of gravity is the simplest one, and it dictates a sun centered solar system.<br /><br />Now, motion alone won't do it, but other observations, like differing phases of venus and the moon, don't bode well for geocentrism. Venus and Mercury's phases indicate they orbit the sun, due to their order and orientation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

L

#### larper

##### Guest
No way. The phases of Mercury and Venus are caused because they are dark on one side and light on the other. As they rotate on their axis, we see "phases".<br /><br />All of the planets are this way. This is because God created Light and Dark before he created the Sun. Venus and Mercury phasing is actually PROOF of that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
well, as I pointed out earlier. GR prohibits a special frame of reference. You can describe hitting your head on a doorway as you hitting the door, or the entire universe jerking around you, moving the door into your head.<br /><br />One's just easier to lay out than the other. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

V

#### valareos

##### Guest
There is no, and can be no solution, because realistically, the physics work the same. One is just easier to explain mathematically as a whole.<br /><br />Its like two cars pointed towards eachother, and are closing in at 100 miles per hour. <br />Is car A moving 100 miles per hour and car b is stationary?<br />is car b moving 100 miles per hour and car a is stationary?<br />Is car A going 40 miles per hour towards B, and B is going 60 miles per hour towards A?<br />Is car A going 150 miles towards car B, and B is driving backwards at 50 miles an hour to get away from A?<br /><br />when they hit, is the damage any different?<br /><br />Throw einstiens frame of references into it...<br /><br />if there is nothign at all to base motion off of, other than the other vehicle, then passangers in A, and passangers in B can calculate collision as if they were standing still, and the other was heading towards them. OBVIOUSLY one is moving, but for the sake of measurement... it doesnt matter wich one.<br /><br />Naah, the only way to prove it, is to ignore earth. you can argue easilly, and fit geocentric view, that mercuy and venus orbit the sun. "Suns moons" so to speak. It matches observed whether earth travels around sun, or vice versa. Now, does mars rotate around the sun, or around earth. The loops in the view of a geocentric that cross the suns path can be analogous to the loops in both mercury and venus, showing that mars indeed rotates aroudn the sun, but at a farther distance than venus or mercury does. Further proof of that can be by showing the moon rotates around the earth in a near circle, the sun rotates around the earth in a near circle, why would God change soemthing that works? notice, Im still concernign myself with a geocentric view. You can get them to agree, then, that the rest of the planets rotate around the sun, and then the solarsystem as a whole rotates around the earth.<br /><br />at this point, we back to the "which car is moving analogy" and in junction

L

#### larper

##### Guest
Actually, while you cannot "prove", you can pose a pretty convincing case. <br /><br />GR does not prohibit a special Frame of Reference, only SR does that.<br /><br />Given a gyroscope of fine enough precision, you could detect the earths acceleration around the Sun. The same gyroscope would NOT detect an acceleration of the sun around the earth. There for, one of the frames is being accelerated, the other is not. We chose to say that the sun is stationary and the earth is moving. It makes all of the math a heck of a lot easier.<br /><br />If that does not constitute proof, just walk away from the zealot who refused to acknowledge it as so. If you chose to continue arguing with him, you will find yourself being repeatedly hit in the head with a brick wall. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

S

#### Saiph

##### Guest
Well, considering SR is encompassed entirely within GR... GR does say what I said it says. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"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" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

D

#### dragon04

##### Guest
The simple proof is this. We know for a scientific fact that a body's mass defines its gravitational pull.<br /><br />We can prove that Earth's orbit is an ellipse. We also know that the sun's mass is massively larger than Earth's.<br /><br />Unless we assume that the laws of physics and orbital mechanics are null and void even after experimental proof, we can't possibly believe that the Earth's mass could control the mass of the Sun gravitationally speaking. <br /><br />Now. If we're willing to believe that a less massive body can gravitationally dominate a more massive body, why isn't Mercury, Mars, Titan, Luna or any body the center of the solar system?<br /><br />The only argument left is the "just because God created the Earth and it's mysteriously able to defy the laws of physics" argument.<br /><br />How to you argue that one with geocentrists? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

I

#### igorsboss

##### Guest
I'm not a geocentrist, but I'll play one here...<br /><br /><font color="yellow">We know for a scientific fact that a body's mass defines its gravitational pull.</font><br /><br />Gravitational force between celestial bodies is not directly observable. Nobody can even explain how gravity works or what Mass really is.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">why isn't Mercury, Mars, Titan, Luna or any body the center of the solar system?</font><br /><br />Because Earth is.

D

#### dragon04

##### Guest
It is most very certainly observable. Unless you can explain why Europa, for example, orbits Jupiter instead of the converse.<br /><br />And Jupiter has several other moons with observable orbital motion that proves beyond a doubt that smaller bodies orbit the host planet.<br /><br />It is also observable due to extrasolar planet detection methods. At LY distances, we see host stars "wobble". We don't see huge circuitous wobbles. Which would be neccessary if they were "orbiting" less massive bodies.<br /><br />Comets are another example. We KNOW they orbit the sun. We have precisely calculated their orbital periods based on the sun as the center of the solar system.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

I

#### igorsboss

##### Guest
<font color="yellow">It is most very certainly observable. Unless you can explain why Europa, for example, orbits Jupiter instead of the converse. </font><br /><br />Position is observable, and I can see how the position changes over time, so I can see the motion, too.<br /><br />Gravitation is a mathematical model, not a direct observation.<br /><br />I don't see or feel or hear or touch or taste the ropes or whatever it is that makes your so-called Gravity mumbo-jumbo work... That's what I mean by gravity not being an "observable".<br /><br />Europa has some extra epicycles.<br /><br />(Actually, I don't even observe Europa's position... I just see some light, and I call it Europa.)

D

#### dragon04

##### Guest
The mere fact that we can predict with total accuracy when and where every satellite of Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto will be visible is proof in and of itself.<br /><br />Other than Earth and Pluto, every other planet that has satellites has multiple satellites. And they follow an orderly and predicatble motion around their host worlds.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

J

#### joshbe

##### Guest
Actually, the center of mass is not in the center of the sun. Its just outside of the center of the sun.

Status
Not open for further replies.