Relativity is wrong...

Which explains why there is never an eclipse of a total Venus?Edited by bluescat48, : No reason given.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Speak to me of parallax, Smooth.Tell me why only a subset of stars near the ecliptic make little back-and-forth squiggles once a year, while some of their brethren near the ecliptic poles make little circles, and some in between those extremes make ellipses.Why is that? Why was it only proven to happen 170 years ago? How can it happen if the earth isn't the one moving relative to the so-called "fixed stars?"

Hello SO, Negative, the Earth rotating on it's axis gives rise to day and night. Not summer and winter. In your post #65 you state. Which would mean the seasons are entirely dependant on the distance from the sun. However since the two hemispheres expierence winter and summer seperate from each other, we know this can not be the case. Instead the seasons are defined by, the tilt of Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution.Abe: In regards to the link you submitted. I have nothing to say about that foolishness. Unless you can explain why, 1. A massive object like the Sun would be orbiting a smaller object like the Earth. 2. Why all the other planets orbit the Sun and how Earth is the exception to that rule. 3. Why the Sun should have shuch an exagerated vertical movement on it's orbital plane. 4. How this diagram explains the error of paralax for other stars. 5. How this diagram explains retrograde motion for other planets. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

quote:

---

The seasons are explained by Sun's orbit. In winter it is far from us, in summer it is closer to us.
  —SO

---

It's declarations like this that make you think you're debating with an uninformed 4-year old. It just staggers belief.

Even my 4 1/2 year old daughter knows that the Earth goes around the Sun and the how day/night work, etc.
We take our 4 1/2" (114mm) reflector a couple of times a month and look at the moon and other celestial bodies. She loves it.It is truely sad what disrepair out education system is, if people really think like this.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Please let the moderators do their job. If you're having a problem in discussion then post a note to Report discussion problems here: No.2.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Coragyps, I was wondering if anyone had brought up this issue. It's worse than that, as the stars that do move against the background stars are not all moving at the same time, rather they follow the same pattern, but at different synchronizations to the annual calendar cycle. When one is at maximum deviation from the average position, another is only part way there, and a third is near the average position.Curiously the pattern of deviation synchronizations exactly matches what would be predicted from an earth in an elliptical orbit around the sun.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

quote:

---

I am the center of the Universe.

---

Why don't you go and make a topic about it, and leave my alone?This topic is only for those who are really interested in geocentrism.

quote:

---

No, it doesn't it curves spacetime, which is what light follows.

---

The same thing predicted in Newtonian mechanics (NM), but NM doesn't use space-time paradigm.

quote:

---

Yes it can. Like I said, you will see the sun moving about the galaxy, and the earth and all other planets orbiting the sun.
What makes you think that can't be observed? What is you evidence for it?

---

No it can not. You can be stationary to one rotating object. But you can't be stationary to both objects that are rotating one around each other. It's a logical fallacy.

quote:

---

That's a weird sentence. I think you mean that objects do not need to orbit more massive objects. Would you care to explain then this is what we see ALL the time, EVERY time?

---

And where exactly do we see this?

quote:

---

Another unexplained phenomena that geocentricity cannot explain.
We observe Venus to stray at most 47 from the Sun. If as SO says the planets and Sun orbit around the Earth and the planets themselves move in circular epicycles as the orbited the Earth, than Venus would only show a very limited phasing. That is at most we should only see very slim crescents of the planet (and the majority of the time as "new Venus" in which Venus would not be visible due to its unilluminated surface) as shown below:

​

This full phasing of Venus is unexplainable with the geocentric model of the solar system.

​

Any way you slice it, there is so much evidence debunking your hypothesis that for you to keep supporting it is beyond persistant ignorance but goes to flat out utter insanity.

---

You obviously have problems reading, or you are so wraped in your heliocentric religion that you cant snap out of it. I already explained phases of Venus in both Ptolomaic and Tychonic models.In a Ptolomaic model, we just increase the size of the epicycle, and make Venus' orbit reach around the Sun.http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/4490/ptoloikt.gifIn the Tychonic model, it is a natural outcome of Venus orbiting the Sun. So this easy to debunk heliocentric evidence is never needed to be repeated again.File:Tychonian system.svg - Wikipedia

quote:

---

I am not going to battle symantics here.

​

Radar is not a direct method for measuring the Sun. You cannot bounce electromagnetic energy off of the Sun and measure the time it takes for it to return.

---

I never said you could. But it's good enough for now.

quote:

---

Um, no that is not what the theories of general/special relativity state. They state that all laws of physics behave the same way in all frames of reference and everything is moving relative to each other. That is there is not static, fixed reference point to measure absolute velocity.

---

Exactly, and that is why there is NO center ANYWHERE. No center to the universe, no center to the solar system. No center whatsoever. Centers are as relative as motions.

quote:

---

The theories of relativity say nothing about things not having centers of gravity. The solar systems center of gravity is the Sun. Though the Sun itself ever slightly wobbles around centers of gravity/mass aka barycenters, which are inside the Sun itself.

---

Umm... no. Center of gravity is not the same as absolute reference frame center. If you don't have that than you have no center. Yes, you can have a center of gravity, but that's not a real center. Anyway, the Sun is not the center of our solar system also, since it is turning around our solar system's center of gravity, which is about 500,000 km above the Sun. So teh Sun itself is not the center of our system any way you look at it.

quote:

---

To calculate the actual motion of the Sun, you would need to sum all the influences from all the planets, comets, asteroids, etc. of the solar system (see n-body problem). If all the planets were aligned on the same side of the Sun, the combined center of mass would lie about 500,000 km above the Sun's surface.

---

Center of mass - Wikipedia

quote:

---

This is in fact one method we can determine extrasolar planets revolving around other Stars.

---

There are no extrasolar planets. The first one was "directly" observed last year. So all the other ones were a pure invention.

quote:

---

Obvious to who? The 30 scientifically-illiterate people in the world that believe the Earth is the center of the Universe around which everything revolves?

---

So, people who disagree with you are scientifically-illiterate? Since when do you decide who is scientifically-illiterate, and who is not?

quote:

---

Nothing is absolute. You need to define what you mean by this statement. If another star approached the solar system and pulled the planets away by its gravitational tug than the Sun would no longer be the center of our Solar System.

---

It's not the center even as we speak now. If relativity is true, it's also moving inside our own system.

quote:

---

Relative to what? You are throwing around words you do not understand. Please explain what you are talking about.

---

Relative to other objects in our system. The supposed center of our system is 500,000 km away from the Sun's surface. It is orbiting around that point because that is the center of mass of our solar system.

quote:

---

Does the universe revolve around the Earth or not? You have gone from the Earth is the center of the universe around which everything revolves to anything is the center. You are so ambiguous I can't figure out what the fuck you are talking about. Hence why I call you a troll just trying to stir up the pot here.

---

Well you are probably dyslexic so you don't know what I'm talking about. If you want to know, I'm explaining to you how the universe functions if relativity is true. Any point you pick is the relative center of the universe in that case. If geocentrisam is true, than obviously, that is not the case. Than the Earth's center is the center of the universe.

quote:

---

Your explanations of scientific phenomena are worse than my 4 year old's attempts to rationalize why she should stay up past her bed time. Logic and rational thinking are lost on you.

---

Dyslexia - Wikipedia

quote:

---

There is no 'absolute reference frame' in spacetime. I am only looking at the Solar System and the affects of gravity on the objects in the solar system. Therefore considering this frame of reference the planets revolve around the Sun. The effects of the planets on the Sun itself is negligible enough to generalize this as saying the planets orbit the Sun not vice versa as the Sun itself is rotating around a center of mass at the center of the Milky Way galaxy as our galaxy hurdles outward with the rest of the galaxies as spacetime itself accelerates its expansion. That is the current cosmological model as agree upon by the majority of science.

---

Again, you are wrong about this. If you are looking for the center of mass of our system, than it's 500,000 km away from the Sun. Which Sun is also orbiting around.And no, the majority of scientists mean nothing to me. The majority of scientists thought that Sun revolved around the Earth 500 years ago, so why did we change? If the majority is ALWAYS right, than what's the point of discussing anything?

quote:

---

Don't pretend to now agree with me. This is not the position you originally promoted. Are you abandoning your geocentric model of the Earth being the center of the uniiverse because it fell apart?

---

No, I'm still a geocentrist. I'm just explaining to you that if relativity is true there is no center to anything. Center is what you pick to be the center.

quote:

---

So if you are saying that everything is 'relative' than do agree or disagree with Einstein, Lorentz, Planck, Hubble, Hoyle and others whose scientific contributions have resulted in our modern understanding of the nature of the universe.

---

I obviously disagree witht hem.

quote:

---

You are assuming these galaxies are touching. Using several different distance-measuring methods i.e. measuring red-shift or using a standard candle such as the cepheid variables in other nearby galaxies, super nova, etc astronomers determine these galaxies are not the same distance from the Earth.

---

But you are assuming that redshift is a measure of distance and the speed of recession in the first place. I'm not assuming anything. I see them touching. It could be an optical illusion, but there is nothing to assume here. Hey, than again, anything can be an optical illusion.

quote:

---

Pardon? Why do the other planets in our Solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth?

---

I'm not sure they do. aybe they do, maybe they don't we don't know. If they do, than that's becasue of Sun's gravity.

quote:

---

Oh. I thought observation said not? Which is more massive in your version of the "Solar" system, the Earth or the Sun?

---

Observations have only indicated movement. But we can't say for sure what is turning around what. In my model the Earth is more massive. But of course, I'm not sure.

quote:

---

Surely all objects undergoing forces suffer a change in motion to some degree. Newtons second law etc. etc. No? What is special about the Earth?

---

It's in teh center of the universe, so the forces cancel each other out.

quote:

---

In your model, the sun must be accelerating towards the earth much more than the earth needs to be accelerating towards the sun in heliocentrism. So you can't pull the 'its the same' trick, unfortunately - you've already stipulated they aren't the same.

---

It's basicly the same, but not identical obviously.

Hi Huntard, let's develop this scenario a little further. Lagrange point - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Lagrangian points (pronounced /lrend’in/; also Lagrange point, L-point, or libration point), are the five positions in an orbital configuration where a small object affected only by gravity can theoretically be stationary relative to two larger objects (such as a satellite with respect to the Earth and Moon). The Lagrange points mark positions where the combined gravitational pull of the two large masses provides precisely the centripetal force required to rotate with them. They are analogous to geostationary orbits in that they allow an object to be in a "fixed" position in space rather than an orbit in which its relative position changes continuously.

​

A more precise but technical definition is that the Lagrangian points are the stationary solutions of the circular restricted three-body problem.[1] For example, given two massive bodies in circular orbits around their common center of mass, there are five positions in space where a third body, of comparatively negligible mass, could be placed which would then maintain its position relative to the two massive bodies. As seen in a rotating reference frame with the same period as the two co-orbiting bodies, the gravitational fields of two massive bodies combined with the centrifugal force are in balance at the Lagrangian points, allowing the third body to be stationary with respect to the first two bodies.[2]
A contour plot of the effective potential of a two-body system (the Sun and Earth here) due to gravity and the centrifugal force as viewed from the rotating frame of reference in which Sun and Earth remain stationary. Objects revolving with the same orbital period as the Earth will begin to move according to the contour lines showing equipotential surfaces. The arrows indicate the gradients of the potential around the five Lagrange points ” downhill toward (red) or away from (blue) them, but at the points themselves these forces are balanced.

---

A satellite camera in each of these 5 places will show the same thing: the rest of the solar system and universe will appear to revolve around a common center of the two objects in an annual cycle, which in the case of the sun and the earth will match the seasons perfectly, and the earth will be seen to spin on an axis tilted approximately 23.439281° in a daily cycle (except that L3 will have difficulty seeing the earth through the sun, and L2 will only see the corona of the sun around the spinning earth).The satellites will be locked in these positions and not need to expend any energy to remain in position, thus demonstrating that they are in fixed orbits that match the annual cycle against the background stars.The only object that matches the daily pattern will be the spinning earth. The mathematics of these positions is entirely and completely independent of any spin in either object, being the result only of their mass and relative position one to the other. The orbital period of these satellites around the common center must exactly match the orbital period of whichever is orbiting what.These satellite cameras can also exchange telemetric data that show their relative distances exactly, over the year adjusting as the earth and the sun move towards and away from each other due to the changing locations along their elliptical orbits. This will demonstrate that northern hemisphere experiences winter when the earth is closer to the sun and summer when it is farther, while the southern hemisphere will see the opposite seasonal patterns.In addition the axis of tilt of the earth relative to the earth\sun orbital plane will be seen to precess during the year but remain relatively fixed compared to the stellar background, with the north pole always pointing towards the north star. During the Northern hemisphere summer the pole region will be constantly lit. During the winter, constantly dark, while the southern pole will experience exactly the opposite pattern.The mathematics is determined by the relative masses of the two bodies, and in the case here, the sun must be many times more massive than the earth, as the 5 points form a pattern determined by the gravitational pull of each mass.The same can be done for each of the planets with similar results, as even Jupiter is small in mass compared to the sun.Either everything is manipulated by a joker god or the earth spins on it's axis while it orbits the sun.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : little bear tale

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

quote:

---

Speak to me of parallax, Smooth.
Tell me why only a subset of stars near the ecliptic make little back-and-forth squiggles once a year, while some of their brethren near the ecliptic poles make little circles, and some in between those extremes make ellipses.

​

Why is that? Why was it only proven to happen 170 years ago? How can it happen if the earth isn't the one moving relative to the so-called "fixed stars?"

---

Maybe because they are moving in this way. I've already explained the parallax, look it up.