I was unaware....

[irishjayhawk]

http://www.catholicintl.com/catholic...notdenygeo.htm

I was unaware there were people who challenged - still - the notion of a heliocentric system.


Now this raises some questions I'd like to ask:

1) Do you believe in heliocentricity?
2) Is there sufficient evidence to contradict heliocentricity or geocentrism (whichever you don't believe in)?


Finally, I'd like to ask this:

Is something like this grounds to revoke or withhold a degree for?

That is, a person is supposed to have a general degree (BA, BGS, whatever). Is this grounds to say "well, it seems you didn't really learn anything" so you cannot have your diploma?


I guess what I'm having a hard time saying is when do you draw the line at real education and nonsense?

[irishjayhawk]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Ok the observational location of the planets from earth can be calculated by the geocentric method and an astronomer does so to look at those planets. But in order to place the observational location for Venus always being close to the sun and being both the morning and evening star and occasionally passing across the face of the Sun, the geocentric method must have Venus on a Epicircle in between the Sun and the earth that circles in sync with the sun. However this means that observing Venus we should never see more than a half Venus crescent. We see almost a full Venus and that is a contrary observation here on earth to the geocentric prediction. In addition we should be able to see Venus cross in front of the Sun both directions. Depending upon which part of the epicircle is involved. But what happens is our observations only show it going in one direction and not at all when we would expect to see Venus going the other way (it being behind the sun for a Heliocentric and of course precludes observation). A failure of observation by the geocentric method.

I had to play with my PDA planetarium to realize this one. It was sort of a "I could have had a V-8" moment.

Actually, I think that's a damn good example. Does the evidence back it up or is it merely a hypothesis?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Ok the observational location of the planets from earth can be calculated by the geocentric method and an astronomer does so to look at those planets. But in order to place the observational location for Venus always being close to the sun and being both the morning and evening star and occasionally passing across the face of the Sun, the geocentric method must have Venus on a Epicircle in between the Sun and the earth that circles in sync with the sun. However this means that observing Venus we should never see more than a half Venus crescent. We see almost a full Venus and that is a contrary observation here on earth to the geocentric prediction. In addition we should be able to see Venus cross in front of the Sun both directions. Depending upon which part of the epicircle is involved. But what happens is our observations only show it going in one direction and not at all when we would expect to see Venus going the other way (it being behind the sun for a Heliocentric and of course precludes observation). A failure of observation by the geocentric method.

I had to play with my PDA planetarium to realize this one. It was sort of a "I could have had a V-8" moment.

I think I've decoded enough of this to see that the bolded part is not right. In the geocentric model, Venus is on an epicircle that is centered somewhere near the center of the Sun. Venus doesn't have to be between the Earth and the Sun. Sometimes it's between and sometimes it's on the far side of the Sun.

[tiptap]

Then you concede that Venus and Mercury are Heliocentric. And comets and asteroids and stuff

[tiptap]

After all I concede Hydae's post of 100. I have no wish to prove the Moon is heliocentric. It goes back to my earlier posts that the Larger Mass and distance gives the center of stated items in the system that are in orbit.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Then you concede that Venus and Mercury are Geocentric. And comets and asteroids and stuff

You mean heliocentric. Of course I do, although I wouldn't call it a concession. Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding). And regardless of which center you pick (because it is rather arbitrary), you're going to have cases of epicircles and epicircles of epicircles.

[tiptap]

In conceding objects that are located both between the earth and sun and at other times beyond the earth and the sun, I have only to find one such object that transits in front of one of the outer planets to show the earth circles the sun. Nicely I only need satellite data from those using gravity slings to get to the outer planets.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You mean heliocentric. Of course I do, although I wouldn't call it a concession. Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding). And regardless of which center you pick (because it is rather arbitrary), you're going to have cases of epicircles and epicircles of epicircles.

Epicircles never existed because of moons around other planets. They were adjustments to ellipse orbit compared to circles. And to account for retrograde motion. I am not doing the calculations but I guess that if you allowed for ellipses from the start the number of Epicircles would go way down. I guess you could call moons around other planets Epicircles.

But I want to take a step back. Making observations from earth, I can note that Venus transits in only one direction and disappears at times and attribute that to Venus blowing up and reforming (something the Mayans talked about). The empirical observations are periodic and I can just count the periods. So there is no difference or NEED for a heliocentric or geocentric idea in order to make calculations. One only introduces one or the other in order to answer questions about the Physics, the geometry, theology that can account for the observations or related beliefs. So in introducing geocentric idea you are stating that this proposition is true for all observations. If it is just geocentric then it has to be true for all observations involved in the system. The geocentric fails with Mercury and Venus. It is not sufficient. On the other hand heliocentric for everything in the solar system except the moon, does work. And since I argue that it is the Physics that is primary and that involves Mass, I am glad to have that inform me as to what is central to orbital calculations about the system we are concerned with. This is well on the way to GR statement that the Frame of Reference is a convenience though for a certain system under investigation some are better than others.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding).

I think I have identified the conflation at the root of the misunderstanding between us in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure no contemporary Heliocentrist suggests the Sun is the center of the Universe, but rather the center of the Solar System. That sounds more like a variation on the Ptolemaic form of Geocentrism, putting Earth in the center of the vast cosmos due to what the geocentrist probably believes is some special status accorded to Earth and Humanity.

Seems to me tiptaps observations regarding Venus prove a Heliocentric Solar System.

Now, if you're using a definition of Heliocentrism which refers to the "universe" instead of the contemporary one, your point has some validity. However, I've never seen anything suggesting that any contemporary interpretation of Heliocentrism puts the Sun at the center of the Universe as you've stated. I'm also fairly sure that Nicolaus Copernicus didn't state that either. I'm unaware if contemporary geocentrism puts the Earth at the center of the Universe, but I would presume that to be the case, due to the "special status" accorded Earth by some that I referred to earlier.

I believe tiptap is addressing the contemporary usage of heliocentrist and geocentrist as it relates specifically to the Solar System, not the larger Universe.

As for the "universe" based interpretation of heliocentrism and geocentrism, I suspect that can be proved or disproved fairly easily. If the Earth or Sun is the center of the Universe, (I think, but may be mistaken) all other bodies would be moving away from the Sol system. If not, some other point was the origin point of the Big Bang. AFAIK, they are not.

Strictly as an observation, that conflation further reinforces my belief you are practicing sophistry.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by tiptap

Epicircles never existed because of moons around other planets. They were adjustments to ellipse orbit compared to circles. And to account for retrograde motion. I am not doing the calculations but I guess that if you allowed for ellipses from the start the number of Epicircles would go way down. I guess you could call moons around other planets Epicircles.

But I want to take a step back. Making observations from earth, I can note that Venus transits in only one direction and disappears at times and attribute that to Venus blowing up and reforming (something the Mayans talked about). The empirical observations are periodic and I can just count the periods. So there is no difference or NEED for a heliocentric or geocentric idea in order to make calculations. One only introduces one or the other in order to answer questions about the Physics, the geometry, theology that can account for the observations or related beliefs. So in introducing geocentric idea you are stating that this proposition is true for all observations. If it is just geocentric then it has to be true for all observations involved in the system. The geocentric fails with Mercury and Venus. It is not sufficient. On the other hand heliocentric for everything in the solar system except the moon, does work. And since I argue that it is the Physics that is primary and that involves Mass, I am glad to have that inform me as to what is central to orbital calculations about the system we are concerned with. This is well on the way to GR statement that the Frame of Reference is a convenience though for a certain system under investigation some are better than others.

I don't know what you mean by "epicircle", but I'm using the word to describe the relative motion of a satellite around a satellite. These epicircles have existed, independent of actual observation for as long as there have been satellites orbiting other satellites.

I understand that you prefer a frame of reference that is defined by mass (most massive = center, to simplify it) and that that preference serves your purposes well, but it's still a preference.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

I think I have identified the conflation at the root of the misunderstanding between us in this discussion.

I'm pretty sure no contemporary Heliocentrist seriously suggests the Sun is the center of the Universe, but rather the center of the Solar System. That sounds more like an extreme form of Geocentrism, putting Earth in the center of the vast cosmos due to what the geocentrist probably believes is some special status accorded to Earth and Humanity.

Seems to me tiptaps observations regarding Venus conclusively prove the former.

Now, if you're using a definition of Heliocentrism which refers to the "universe" instead of the contemporary one, your point has some validity. However, I've never seen anything suggesting that any contemporary interpretation of Heliocentrism puts the Sun at the center of the Universe as you've stated. I'm unaware if contemporary geocentrism puts the Earth at the center of the Universe, but I would presume that to be the case, due to the "special status" accorded Earth by some that I referred to earlier.

I believe tiptap is addressing the contemporary usage of heliocentrist and geocentrist as it relates specifically to the Solar System, not the larger Universe.

As for the "universe" based interpretation of heliocentrism and geocentrism, I suspect that can be proved or disproved fairly easily. If the Earth or Sun is the center of the Universe, (I think, but may be mistaken) all other bodies would be moving away from the Sol system. If not, some other point was the origin point of the Big Bang. AFAIK, they are not.

I've never been defending the extreme form of geocentrism that tip tap and others have been trying to use as a strawman in this discussion. The man quoted in the OP article is obviously (at least to me) not arguing for something extreme.

Whether we're talking about the universe, galaxy, or solar system, you get to choose the frame of reference and choosing to make the earth the center is not inherently incorrect even if most people prefer the standard mass-based concept of center.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I've never been defending the extreme form of geocentrism that tip tap and others have been trying to use as a strawman in this discussion. The man quoted in the OP article is obviously (at least to me) not arguing for something extreme.

Originally Posted by patteeu

Neither the earth nor the sun are the center of the universe according to the way I look at the picture, but either one of them could be seen that way (at least based on our current understanding).

Then why make that statement unless you're conflating the Solar System based model of Heliocentrism with the Universally based model of Geocentrism?

It appears that you conceding the Heliocentric model of the Solar System in your post 125:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost....&postcount=125

Or are you now arguing that the Heliocentric model of the Solar System is arbitrary? If so, how do you account for the observations of Venus as put forth by tiptap and Copernicus? If the Heliocentric model can account for those observations, but the geocentric model does not, then the Heliocentric "frame of reference" for the Solar System is the one conforming to fact or truth, and thus by your definition, correct.

Originally Posted by Apocryphal Galileo Galielei

E pur si muove

Originally Posted by patteeu

Whether we're talking about the universe, galaxy, or solar system, you get to choose the frame of reference and choosing to make the earth the center is not inherently incorrect even if most people prefer the standard mass-based concept of center.

As tiptap has shown, that is true only if you err in making the reference system supreme, and not the space.

To summarize:

The observations of Venus prove the heliocentric model of the Solar System is the one reflecting fact or truth, and thus the "correct" one. For the geocentric model of the Solar System to be "equally correct", it must also be able to account for those observations. As tiptap showed, it does not.

If you are using the "not the center point of the universe" argument you brought up in post 125, the fact not all objects are moving away from the Sol System as a result of the big bang would lead me to believe that disproves both a Heliocentric and Geocentric model of the universe. Though that seems to be a strawman argument, as neither Copernicus nor any Heliocentrist I'm aware of states the sun is the center of the universe.

If your argument is that neither the Earth nor the Sun is the center of the universe, I don't disagree at all. Nor I suspect would any other supporter of heliocentrism. However, that does not impact on the superior correctness of the Heliocentric model for the Solar System as proved by the Venus observations.

Which is, as I stated, all I have been commenting on. I suspect that is also what tiptap has been addressing. i.e. The correctness of a Heliocentric Solar System model as opposed to a Geocentric model of the Solar System, as confirmed by the Venus observations mentioned above.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Then why that statement unless you're conflating the Solar System based model of Heliocentrism with the Universally based model of Geocentrism?

It appears that you conceding the Heliocentric model of the Solar System in your post 125:

http://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost....&postcount=125

Or are you now arguing that the Heliocentric model of the Solar System is arbitrary? If so, how do you account for the observations of Venus as put forth by tiptap and Copernicus? If the Heliocentric model can account for those observations, but the geocentric model does not, then the Heliocentric "frame of reference" is the one conforming to fact or truth, and thus by your definition, correct.



BTW- As for "not defending the strawman of the extreme form of geocentrism", can you offer anything showing any argument of geocentrism that isn't Universally based being made by anyone?

If you're not defending a Universally based model of Geocentrism (the Earth as the center of the Universe), are you arguing the Solar System is "Geocentric"? If that's the case, it appears you already conceded that point in your post # 125.

I've never seen a geocentric argument that suggested that only the Solar System was geocentric. Indeed, that appear to undermine a fundamental belief behind geocentrism, that there is something unique and special about the Earth and it's place in the cosmos. In Heliocentrism, the Sun is the center of the Solar System (again, proven by the observations of Venus shown above), but it's just another star among trillions.

I'm most definitely not conceding anything. I have not changed my argument an iota since the beginning of this thread. I didn't concede what you say I've conceded in post 125 either. In that post, I "conceded" what I had thought from the beginning. That it's accurate to say that venus and mercury are heliocentric. Left unsaid is that it remains accurate to say that they are geocentric as well (according to the meaning of "geocentric" used by the guy in the OP article not what you and tip tap apparently mean by it).

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

As tiptap has shown, that is true only if you err in making the reference system supreme, and not the space.


To put it simply, the observations of Venus prove the heliocentric model of the Solar System is the one reflecting fact or truth, and thus the "correct" one. For the geocentric model of the Solar System to be "equally correct", it must also be able to account for those observations. As tiptap showed, it cannot. If you are using the "center point of the universe" argument (though Copernicus and no Heliocentrist I'm aware of does) then the fact not all objects are moving away from the Earth as a result of the big bang disproves both a Heliocentric and Geocentric model of the universe.

You're completely wrong about this. You obviously have no idea what my argument is. I thought we'd moved beyond this particular misunderstanding.

[Adept Havelock]

Originally Posted by patteeu

You obviously have no idea what my argument is. I thought we'd moved beyond this particular misunderstanding.

Actually, I do. You are arguing that the correctness of the geocentric or heliocentric frame of reference is completely arbitrary and neither is more correct than the other.

However, the observations of Venus discussed prove the superior correctness of the Heliocentric Model of the Solar System as opposed to the Geocentric model of the Solar System. Heliocentrism can account for the observations of Venus, while Geocentrism suffers from failure by observation. Thus, Heliocentrism is a more accurate reflection of the reality. Therefore it must be more correct than Geocentrism.

Originally Posted by patteeu

according to the meaning of "geocentric" used by the guy in the OP article not what you and tip tap apparently mean by it.

Then please explain your perception of his meaning of the word "geocentric", and how it differs from the one I'm using. I'd like to make certain of this before I proceed. I'll go first.

My definition of geocentrism: The theory that the Earth is the centerpoint of the Solar System or Universe, and the other objects in the Solar System or Universe revolve around it.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Adept Havelock

Actually, I do. You are arguing that the correctness of the geocentric or heliocentric frame of reference is completely arbitrary.

However, the observations of Venus discussed prove the superior correctness of the Heliocentric Model of the Solar System as opposed to the Geocentric model of the Solar System. Heliocentrism can account for the observations of Venus, while Geocentrism suffers from failure by observation. Thus, Heliocentrism is a more accurate reflection of the reality. Therefore it must be more correct than Geocentrism.



Then please explain your perception of his meaning of the word "geocentric", and how it differs from the one I'm using. I'd like to make certain of this before I proceed. I'll go first.

My definition of geocentrism: The theory that the Earth is the centerpoint of the Solar System or Universe, and the other objects in the Solar System or Universe revolve around it.

No. Actually you don't. My definition is the same as what you wrote, but your's isn't. At least not if you think that tiptap's references to venus observations invalidates it. You seem to be assuming orbits similar to those described in this picture:



I'm not. I'm assuming exactly the same relative motion that you do with your heliocentric model and pointing out that that relative motion can be described by a geocentric model too. That's what Sungenis and Consolmagno are talking about in the OP:

Interviewer: "So, Dr. Sungenis, you believe that the sun goes around the earth, is that correct?"

Sungenis: "Yes, and so do a lot of other people."

Interviewer: "Like who?"

Sungenis: "Well, they won't come right out and admit it, but they do hold that geocentrism is just as valid a model of cosmology as heliocentrism."

Interviewer: "And who are these people?"

Sungenis: "Oh, people like Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, Julian Barbour, Bruno Bertotti...."

At this point, the interviewer interrupted and turned to Guy Consolomagno.

Interviewer: "Bro Consolmagno, do you believe that the sun revolves around the earth?"

Consolmagno: "Well, let's put it this way. It's easier to make calculations with the earth going around the sun."