[geocentrism] Re: Challenge
- From: Steven Jones <stavro_jones@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:43:53 +0100 (BST)
Dear Mr. Griffin,
As regards your question concerning how the celestial mechanics of a particular
geocentric model would account for the alleged changing radial velocities of
stars, the simplest solution is simply to refer you to the modified Tychonic
model, in which, all the planets (except the Earth which is not a planet)
accompany the sun which in turn rotates around the Earth once a day. Below is a
quote from Encyclopaedia Britannica that should further clarify the situation:
from celestial mechanics
Historical background
Early theories
"Tycho Brahe (1546-1601), who was born three years after Copernicus' death and
three years after the publication of the latter's heliocentric model of the
solar system, still embraced a geocentric model, but he had only the Sun and
the Moon orbiting the Earth and all the other planets orbiting the Sun.
Although this model is mathematically equivalent to the heliocentric model of
Copernicus, it represents an unnecessary complication and is physically
incorrect."
© Encyclopaedia Britannica 2000 CD-ROM Deluxe
It is possible to conclude then, that assuming this observed motion of the
stars does exists, then it is not possible to prove heliocentrism with it.
Simply because, via the principal of equivalence the movement of the Earth
cannot be proved. Notice though, that despite the authors actually suggesting
that the two models are mathematically equivalent to one another, the
geocentric scenario is given an "unnecessary complication." I wonder therefore
if that unnecessary complication might be the inconvenience of God!
Before I continue, I would like to stress that I do believe that there is a way
of distinguishing between the two models, such has been done in my Father?s
paper ?On the movement of the umbra during a solar eclipse?, which concludes
that the heliocentric model does not account for the observed direction and
speed of the moons shadow. A lot of confusion over Mach?s principal actually
derives from whether a model that has a fixed Earth is the same as a model
which has a rotating one. (There are geocentric models in which the Earth still
rotates upon its axis once every 23h:56m).
However, for your benefit I will list a couple of references that might
enlighten you to the enormous amount of work that has been done on the field of
dynamical equivalence.
The following are all scientific papers that show that geocentrism is
indistinguishable from heliocentricism.
Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1921, Ibid. 22:29.
Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp.
318-321.
Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
Lynden-Bell, D., J. Katz, & J. Bilak, 1995. "Mach's Principle from the
Relativistic Constraint Equations," Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, 272:150-160.
Next, concerning the supposed distances to the stars, there is nothing to show
that any star might be a phenomenal 100 light years away or more.
Take a look at ?Stellar distances and the age of the universe? by my Father at:
http://www.midclyth.supanet.com - Stellar distances, the age of the universe
and Olbers? paradox.
As regards aberration, this is not proof the Earth?s movement. Mr. Jack Lewis
dealt with this very capably in a previous posting that you largely ignored. I
urge you to have another look, in particular please read ?Airy?s Failure?
In a kinematical sense, aberration is either due to the motion of the Earth, or
the motion of the stars about the Earth.
Finally, Mr. Mantock has conveniently used the weapon of punctuation! The full
statement reads:
?CAI will be the sole judge of whether you have successfully proven your case.
But since CAI is built on its reputation of honesty and truthfulness, rest
assured that if you do indeed prove your case, you will be rewarded the money.?
(2 Tim 4:3-4 KJV) "For the time will come when they will not endure sound
doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers,
having itching ears;
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto
fables."
Kind Regards,
Steven Jones.
---------------------------------
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
Other related posts:
