*

Offline Tim Alphabeaver

  • *
  • Posts: 143
  • That's no beaver
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2019, 02:37:12 PM »
The peer review system is used to promote science within the accepted model and discourages critical thinking and can thus ignore experimental proof that the mainstream model is wrong .
I strongly disagree with this. If you were right, then places like CERN wouldn't exist. They are explicitly searching for physics that is beyond the Standard Model.
**I move away from the infinite flat plane to breathe in

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #21 on: July 29, 2019, 02:43:22 PM »
The peer review system is used to promote science within the accepted model and discourages critical thinking and can thus ignore experimental proof that the mainstream model is wrong .
I strongly disagree with this. If you were right, then places like CERN wouldn't exist. They are explicitly searching for physics that is beyond the Standard Model.

That's what these conspiracy theorists fail to understand, or if they do understand, are ignoring.  Scientists live to make new discoveries.  It's why they got into science in the first place.  Anyone who claims that scientists cover up the truth in order to preserve the status quo don't know the first thing about science and scientists.  Scientists don't get recognition, promotions, and grant money for merely confirming what is already know.  They achieve that by making new discoveries. 

newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2019, 07:18:22 PM »
I am not going to go into a huge amount of detail with this but I agree that it has never been proved that the heliocentric model of the solar system (Universe or whatever you want to call it) is correct. Indeed, if you limit your fact finding to what we directly experience through observation it seems ludicrous to think that the Earth is anything other than stationary at the centre of everything we can see (i.e. the Universe). The Earth it seems to us from any single vantage point upon its surface is a flat plane with the heavens rotating above us.

Our ancestors witnessed events happen in the skies above us without any input from them at all. Something was causing those events to happen though and in the absence of any other logical explanation they believed that some unseen power, force or entity was behind it all. This entity could be described now as 'God'. The supposition that the planets, Sun and Moon somehow orbit above the surface of the Earth was accepted for many a century. Some of the events observed could be accounted for by this model quite easily but others less so. Then through the earliest (recorded) telescopic observations in the early 17th century it was noted that Venus shows a phase cycle identical to the Moon. As telescopes became more refined it was noticed that Mercury also showed the same. None of the other known planets at the time, Mars Jupiter or Saturn showed this same pattern. These phases were difficult to account for if the Earth was at the assumed centre of the Solar System but were easily explained if you place the Sun at the centre instead and then assume that Mercury and Venus follow orbits that are nearer to the Sun than the Earth.  Not only does Venus show phases but it also grows in visible size as it turns into a crescent shape and dwindles in size as it approaches 'full'. These are observations that can be repeated today in any amateur telescope.

So while the heliocentric model has never been proved, there is very strong evidence to support it. Unlike I would suggest, the models proposed by modern FET.


Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #23 on: July 31, 2019, 08:14:20 AM »
I would like to point out that the planetary phases of Venus and Mercury were explained easily in the Tycho Brahe geocentric model . These planets orbited the sun which in turn orbited the earth .
        Heliocentrism was founded on no new evidence .

newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2019, 09:56:16 AM »
Tycho proposed that the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth while all other planets orbit around the Sun.

If this were true then why is it that only Mercury and Venus show a complete cycle? Surely if Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were orbiting around a Sun that was in turn orbitting around the Earth then from our vantage point n Earth we would see a cresent Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as well. Which we never do.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #25 on: July 31, 2019, 10:14:52 AM »
That's what these conspiracy theorists fail to understand, or if they do understand, are ignoring.  Scientists live to make new discoveries.  It's why they got into science in the first place.  Anyone who claims that scientists cover up the truth in order to preserve the status quo don't know the first thing about science and scientists.  Scientists don't get recognition, promotions, and grant money for merely confirming what is already know.  They achieve that by making new discoveries.
I agree they don't get recognition for merely confirming what is already known...

The problem is they continue to get money for perpetuating the things we obviously don't know, a' la' melting ice sheets and climate modeling, rather than actual science.

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #26 on: July 31, 2019, 11:15:28 AM »
Tycho proposed that the Sun and Moon orbit the Earth while all other planets orbit around the Sun.

If this were true then why is it that only Mercury and Venus show a complete cycle? Surely if Mars, Jupiter and Saturn were orbiting around a Sun that was in turn orbitting around the Earth then from our vantage point n Earth we would see a cresent Mars, Jupiter and Saturn as well. Which we never do.

This is the Brahe model I referred to

 http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub3.htm

Mercury and Venus orbit the sun . In his model Earth is stationary - science is unable to provide proof of rotation . Apparently outer planets do exhibit phases although I've not looked into that yet .

newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #27 on: July 31, 2019, 11:36:08 AM »
The outer planets show a very slight flattening (gibbous) effect. Most pronounced in the case of Mars and least with Saturn. The outer planets never show a crescent phase. I know that because I have been observing the planets through telescopes for many years. So my evidence for that is direct observation.

The current model for the formation of solar system is that it formed from an accretion disk of gas and dust that surrounded a protostar that we now called the Sun.

This model is supported by our modern day observations of other solar systems forming around other stars. This stellar centric solar system model certainly accounts for all the observations we make of the planets and is I would suggest rather more simple and logical compared to Tychos models. In fact I can see several problems with Tychos model. For example it allows for an angle between Saturn the Earth and Sun would produce an almost half phase (1st quarter) Saturn which in the real world (as seen from Earth) never happens. Photos of a 'half Saturn' have been taken but only from spaceprobes like Cassini.

You have used that word proof again rather than evidence when it comes to favouring one model over another. Tycho assumed the Earth was stationary because he could not feel it moving. That is the same for us as it was for him but with the benefit of the further progress in science that has been made since Tychos day we now know why we have no direct sensation of the Earths orbit around the Sun. We see the evidence rather than feel it.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 12:38:18 PM by newhorizons »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #28 on: July 31, 2019, 03:54:43 PM »
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation . Strong evidence of a stationary earth  . We feel that and we see the sun cross the sky .

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #29 on: July 31, 2019, 04:10:31 PM »
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation . Strong evidence of a stationary earth  . We feel that and we see the sun cross the sky .

Can you feel yourself going 500 MPH in an airliner at cruise?   No, you can't.  By your standard of evidence, the airplane isn't moving.  The earth is moving below you.  Why?  Because you can't feel the speed and you see the earth moving.

newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #30 on: July 31, 2019, 05:25:15 PM »
Quote
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation

I am more curious to know what you define as 'stationary'.  Evidence of the Earth rotating and orbiting the Sun lies not in what you feel but what you experience. Science doesn't and has never set out to 'prove' anything, It merely presents evidence.  It is then left to us as individuals whether to accept or dismiss the evidence.  The Earths rotation causes day and night and we use the Earths orbit to define a time period that we call a year. Finally the tilt of the Earths axis, combined with its motion around the Sun result in the seasons. Your interpretation or belief (call it what you like) as a flat Earther is different and of course you are entitled to think that way if you wish.


Going back on our earlier discussion, Tycho was a highly respected observer and used some very accurate instrumentation for his time. His attention to detail in terms of logging the positions of the planets was immense and his records proved invaluable to helping Kepler develop his laws of planetary motion.  The combined efforts of Tycho and Kepler was a beautiful example of the scientific method in action. As a man of the church, Kepler believed passionately that the planetary orbits should be circular but he couldn't get his predicted planetary positions to match Keplers observed positions. Only by acting contrary to his own beliefs and making the planetary orbits elliptical instead could he finally get his predictions to agree with Keplers records exactly.

Despite being an excellent observer, Tychos ideas about the layout of the solar system though left a lot to be desired. The model that he developed with the Sun orbiting the Earth cannot possibly account for everything we experience. One major flaw with the diagram that you sent the link to puts the Sun on a potential collision path with Mars for example!  Surely even you must accept that is not possible?!?
« Last Edit: July 31, 2019, 05:27:00 PM by newhorizons »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #31 on: August 01, 2019, 06:23:58 AM »
I already know the heliocentric theory - it's thrust upon us when we are young and impressionable . It's brainwashing and leads to unquestioning acceptance of authority.

The term stationary is self evident . It is what we experience about our earth - we do not feel any rotation .

Rose tinted spectacles have no place in scientific endeavour .

Brahe's model explained everything he observed completely so what was this " lot to be desired ".

Brahe was given an assistant , Kepler , that he did not want or require . He actually threw him out . Again Kepler was manouvered  back into Brahe's employment and shortly after Brahe was dead , some say murdered by Kepler .

Kepler proceeded to steal all Brahe's work . The courts of King Frederick ordered the return of this body of work to it's rightful place . Kepler returned all but the data on the planet Mars - which disappeared .

Kepler's laws are Kepler's Fantasy , they do not exist. Where is the derivation of these laws . Laws are exact . Planetary orbits supposedly loosely fit these laws .

That version of Brahe's geocentric model which I linked was obviously drawn by a cloth headed heliocentrist  - he put's the sun at the centre of his representation of Brahe's geocentric model haha. Should be easy for you to look up the real one , if you are interested .







newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #32 on: August 01, 2019, 06:50:24 AM »
Quote
That version of Brahe's geocentric model which I linked was obviously drawn by a cloth headed heliocentrist

If you are so dismissive of that version of Brahes model then why did you send the link in the first place?

You don't need to give me a history lesson on Tycho or Kepler. I have a degree in astronomy so I am very familiar with the background.  What I would like you to do is to bring some new compelling evidence to the discussion that makes me think 'Hang on he may be right..' So far you haven't don't that. All you have done is make scathing comments that are quite typical of a conspiracy theorist about something you don't want to believe in.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 06:52:34 AM by newhorizons »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #33 on: August 01, 2019, 07:37:37 AM »
You displayed a lack of knowledge about the background which is why I did have to give you a lesson on Tycho and Kepler and the geocentric model . You showed this - post 24 on this thread .

Those are not scathing comments on Kepler - they are truthful - there is no experimental/observational derivation of his supposed laws .

What compelling evidence exists for this heliocentric model ?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #34 on: August 01, 2019, 10:34:35 AM »
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation . Strong evidence of a stationary earth  . We feel that and we see the sun cross the sky .

Can you feel yourself going 500 MPH in an airliner at cruise?   No, you can't.  By your standard of evidence, the airplane isn't moving.  The earth is moving below you.  Why?  Because you can't feel the speed and you see the earth moving.
Your reply details an indoor/outdoor comparison and is invalid.

Offline Zonk

  • *
  • Posts: 74
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #35 on: August 01, 2019, 01:44:19 PM »
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation . Strong evidence of a stationary earth  . We feel that and we see the sun cross the sky .

Can you feel yourself going 500 MPH in an airliner at cruise?   No, you can't.  By your standard of evidence, the airplane isn't moving.  The earth is moving below you.  Why?  Because you can't feel the speed and you see the earth moving.
Your reply details an indoor/outdoor comparison and is invalid.

If earth is surrounded by a dome, isn't everything indoors?

In any event, what does that have to do with anything?  One cannot feel stable, non-accelerating motion whether one is on a rotating globe or in a vehicle.  Even if you are on a bicycle, you can't feel the motion.  You can feel the wind on your face, but you can feel wind on your face standing still also.  But you can't feel the motion if you are not accelerating.  If you jump out of an airplane at a high enough altitude to free fall for a while, you will initially feel the acceleration and the wind, two distinct feelings.  once you reach terminal velocity, you will no longer feel the acceleration and feel only the wind, the same feeling you would get if you were standing still in a wind tunnel.

If you were in space, moving at 100,000KPH, you would have no sensation of motion.  As you pass a stationary object, it would appear that you were motionless and the object were moving at 100,000 KPH in the opposite direction.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 01:53:47 PM by Zonk »

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #36 on: August 01, 2019, 02:36:39 PM »
Science is unable to provide proof . This is the correct use of the term. Several experiments failed to find rotation . Strong evidence of a stationary earth  . We feel that and we see the sun cross the sky .

Can you feel yourself going 500 MPH in an airliner at cruise?   No, you can't.  By your standard of evidence, the airplane isn't moving.  The earth is moving below you.  Why?  Because you can't feel the speed and you see the earth moving.
Your reply details an indoor/outdoor comparison and is invalid.

If earth is surrounded by a dome, isn't everything indoors?

In any event, what does that have to do with anything?  One cannot feel stable, non-accelerating motion whether one is on a rotating globe or in a vehicle.  Even if you are on a bicycle, you can't feel the motion.
As someone who has ridden a bike extensively, this is patently false. 
You can feel the wind on your face, but you can feel wind on your face standing still also.
And the perceived force of the wind increases as you move.
But you can't feel the motion if you are not accelerating.  If you jump out of an airplane at a high enough altitude to free fall for a while, you will initially feel the acceleration and the wind, two distinct feelings.
And here you contradict your own position within one sentence. 
once you reach terminal velocity, you will no longer feel the acceleration and feel only the wind, the same feeling you would get if you were standing still in a wind tunnel.
As you admit yourself, in the above statement, false.
If you were in space, moving at 100,000KPH, you would have no sensation of motion.  As you pass a stationary object, it would appear that you were motionless and the object were moving at 100,000 KPH in the opposite direction.
Wrong.

There are five senses.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 03:55:43 PM by totallackey »

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 421
    • View Profile
Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #37 on: August 01, 2019, 03:17:52 PM »
"And the perceived force of the wind increases." - Unless you're cycling in the direction of the wind then you feel like there is no wind at all sometimes.
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #38 on: August 01, 2019, 03:42:36 PM »
"And the perceived force of the wind increases." - Unless you're cycling in the direction of the wind then you feel like there is no wind at all sometimes.
Once you cycle enough, it no longer matters...

Most of the time, you are always cycling into the wind, uphill, both ways....

newhorizons

Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« Reply #39 on: August 01, 2019, 04:11:35 PM »
Quote
You displayed a lack of knowledge about the background which is why I did have to give you a lesson on Tycho and Kepler and the geocentric model . You showed this - post 24 on this thread .

OK you got me on that one... please advise where I showed this lack of knowledge as you put it.

I am still waiting on you to provide compelling evidence for what you believe to be a stationary Earth. I have already given examples for both the rotation of the Earth so please refer back through the discussion for that. You can go into whatever level of detail you wish to in terms of the astronomy side of things.  I will always be able to keep up with you. On that subject.. and just out of interest what experience do you have in using telescopes? 

Quote
there is no experimental/observational derivation of his supposed laws

Really... how do you come to that conclusion?  I can provide details of how you can reach an analytical derivation of Keplers 3rd law for example. I will gladly give you instructions if you would like to try it yourself.  I take it you do know what his 3rd law is about?
« Last Edit: August 01, 2019, 04:17:24 PM by newhorizons »