Friday, July 13, 2007

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler...What did they know?

The textbook for the new GCSE Physics syllabus has just arrived at St. Thickchilds.

I read the other day that only 20% of Americans realise that the Sun goes round the Earth. Apparently the figure is similar in the UK except that more people asked what a percentage was.

All you old fashioned 'Heliocentric' teachers should visit this site and brush up on your Astronomy. Here you can learn about geostationary satellites and here you can buy a mug to leave around in the Science Prep Room.

39 comments:

dearieme said...

"That Mathematics have been invented specifically to uphold
Copernicanism." Not often that you see maths used as a plural, is it?

Anonymous said...

I think you need to redraft that sentence - "20% of Americans realise the Sun goes round the Earth"

athemax said...

Actually I think it probably needs redrafting to 20% of daft Southern rednecks couldn't be arsed to answer the question properly.

Anonymous said...

Dumbing them down....again. And ommitting all basic essentials,a s usual. My daughter has had 7 yers' of music teaching and knows all about bongo drums, steel drums and sitars - but hasn't been taught about Elgar, Mozart, Beethoven, Haendel.

Anonymous said...

I suspect you are trying to wind up alanorei and his muppet friend bfb again.

alanorei said...

Dear Mr C.

Thanks for the links. You can also find the book linked here:

http://www.geocentricity.com/

I am re-reading Dr Bouw's book Geocentricity, first published in 1992 and may get Marshall Hall's book afterwards.

As a King James Bible believer, I have no problem with geocentricity. Dr Bouw faces all the issues head-on and satisfactorily addresses them all, I believe.

athemax said...

Hello Alanorei, you still haven't answered the last questions I posed you about the mad Dr Bouw's theories.
However if the Sun revolves around the Earth how come the scientists controlling the Soho probe have managed to miss this fact for the last twelve years read the attached link and apply a bit of basic geometry and you'll see what I mean.
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/about/orbit.html

alanorei said...

athemax said...
Hello Alanorei, you still haven't answered the last questions I posed you about the mad Dr Bouw's theories.


My apologies - but you'll have to repeat them as I don't recall what they are.

Re: SOHO. The device appears to be gravity-locked on an Earth-Sun line. Its observed orbit would not therefore contradict geocentricity.

Just in passing, dismissing Dr Bouw as "mad" does seem a bit judgemental.

Since Mr C. has posted a new topic, you may wish to continue this discussion OL, in which case I invite you to access my email as indicated on the earlier evolutiion thread.

Anonymous said...

Oh happy day! The madman has returned!

Anonymous said...

Please tell us you believe the Earth is flat too, go on please.

athemax said...

The Earth and Soho are like 2 carousel horses next to each other, from the point of the view of someone sat on the outer one the inner one doesn't move but both move from the point of view of the man stood in the middle of the carousel.
Since Soho doesn't move from the point of view of its controllers then the Earth must be the outer horse not the man in the centre.
The two questions I asked you were given the speed the Sun must be moving at in a geocentric model why are we not detecting it's doppler shift? The planet Jupiter is also a major emitter of
radio waves and should in fact have a double shift (one from its motion around the Sun and one from its motion around the Earth) it doesn't why not?
The other question is how come all of NASA's probes get to their destination when NASA plots their courses using an heliocentric model, In addition a geocentric model requires a much higher relative velocity between Earth and Mars than a heliocentric one does, which means they would require much bigger rockets than they actually have. How do you explain this?
The Cassini spaceprobe picked up the velocity needed to reach Saturn by slingshotting around the inner planets including Earth how do you explain this in a geocentric solar system?
The orbital velocity of the Moon has been measured by a wide variety of means including telescopic, radar and laser reflection, it's too slow by a factor of about 30 to match Bouw's model why?

Grant said...

The Earth is indisputably flat. (And always has been) Check out the real evidence at:

http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

and open your eyes to the truth.

Grant said...

cuckoo!

grant said...

The above comment of cuckoo is simply a flippant one by someone using my name. All scientists who persue unconventional lines of research become used to this.

There is of course no actual proof that the Earth is a sphere as is commonly taught. It is nothing more than a convenient assumption.

All of our modern theories and 'science' work perfectly well alongside the notion of the Earth being a disc of nominal thickness.

There are in fact, many discrepancies in 'accepted science' that can only be explained by this realisation.

Have a look through the forums of our society below and maybe you will start to question what you have simply been told without justification in the past.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

athemax said...

I've seen this website before and I suspect most of it is a hoax, the problem with Flat Earthers is not only do they have to deny huge amounts of evidence to the contrary they need to postulate a conspiracy involving virtually everyone but them and stretching back centuries.

alanorei said...

athemax said... etc.

Thank you for these items. I will look into them and get back to you.

It will take a little time because it will mean trawling through back issues of The Biblical Astronomer.

There may also be a facility on Dr Bouw's site to pose these questions - he does make responses to critics.

In the meantime, I've forwarded your questions to Dr Bouw by email. Depending on his current commitments, he may be able to respond and provide the necessary answers.

Anonymous said...

Grant said

"There is of course no actual proof that the Earth is a sphere as is commonly taught. It is nothing more than a convenient assumption."

Please get off this blog you worthless dunce. Anonymous was being too kind to you. Grow up and go and learn some basic physics.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
The Earth and Soho are like 2 carousel horses next to each other, from the point of the view of someone sat on the outer one the inner one doesn't move but both move from the point of view of the man stood in the middle of the carousel.


Note that from the heliocentric viewpoint, the outer 'horse' i.e. Earth, is perceived as spinning on its axis. I think this would give the same result as a geocentric perspective.

I continue to look into the other points you have raised.

grant said...

So, 'Anonymous' why do you personally believe that the Earth is round?

Is it not simply because that is what you have been told, and you believe it without question? Were you not also once told of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, but presumably you no longer believe in these?

athemax said...

You don't sound very sure, Soho is too small to be seen of course but it's tracked by radio, From any single point on the Earth's surface it would appear to move around the Earth like the Sun appears too; because the Sun going around the Earth is an illusion caused by the Earth rotating.
Like all space probes Soho is tracked from a network of ground stations around the globe, If it was moving relative to the Earth it would be obvious due to triangulation of the signal.
While you're on it perhaps you might like to read the following link regarding the Japanese Solar-B satellite
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/22/solar_b_liftoff/
Solar-B goes around the Earth in an orbit that takes it over the North and South Poles and keeps it on the dayside of the Earth for two-thirds of the time
It takes 96mins to make one orbit, In a geocentric model the Sun will move 22 degs of arc across the sky for every one orbit of Solar-B. This is a HUGE difference, anyone checking the data would have noticed this after the first couple of orbits, it makes 15 a day and it's been up there for 10 months.
Guess these Japs are just not that observant.

athemax said...

Grant
I still think you're trying to take the piss but as for your question as to why I think the Earth is a ball, well there are countless photos taken of it from space and the moon which show it to be a ball which is why of course Flat Earthers have to include a conspiracy theory in their delusions.
As for personal anecdotes well, I've stood on the deck of cross channel ferries and watch both coastlines appear and disappear over the horizon. I have seen countless ships disappear over the horizon from the beach, either that or I have watched them all sink.
I have been up in planes and helicopters several times and watched the horizon retreat and come closer as there have been height changes.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
You don't sound very sure, Soho is too small to be seen of course but it's tracked by radio, From any single point on the Earth's surface it would appear to move around the Earth like the Sun appears too; because the Sun going around the Earth is an illusion caused by the Earth rotating.


I freely admit, this is a new topic from my stance but it appears from your second sentence above that again, the same results would emerge whether a geocentric or heliocentric approach was used.

Re: triangulation effects, note that the geocentric approach also includes the rotation of the universe relative to the Earth, so again, I suggest, both approaches would give the same result.

In essence, it appears that satellites and related calculations aren't in themselves sufficient to distinguish between either geocentricity or heliocentricity. Either approach, for example, can be used to justify the 'slingshot effect' - though it is interesting that spacecraft orbits for other planets are calculated using the Earth, not the sun, as the centre of the coordinates. The implication is that the Earth is the centre of the planetary system.

However, I trust that Dr Bouw will respond to my note and I await his comments with interest.

athemax said...

No sorry Solar-B is essentially a fixed viewpoint of the Sun, It is completely independent of the planet underneath it, A Tychonian and a Copernican model would look wildly different to it. There is no possible way one could look like the other.
As an aside a satellite in polar orbit or indeed any orbit except equatorial is proof positive that the Earth rotates. Every time they go round the planet has turned and they go over a different part of the surface, If the Earth wasn't turning then it would go over the same bit time and time again.
Considering the number of spy satellites the Pentagon has got up there perhaps the Americans aren't that observant either.

alanorei said...

athemax said...
No sorry Solar-B is essentially a fixed viewpoint of the Sun, It is completely independent of the planet underneath it, A Tychonian and a Copernican model would look wildly different to it. There is no possible way one could look like the other.
As an aside a satellite in polar orbit or indeed any orbit except equatorial is proof positive that the Earth rotates.


Thanks for the extra information, which I have noted and will follow up.

Note, however, that it is the modified Tychonic Model that Dr Bouw and others propose, i.e. one in which, according to Dr Bouw, the stars are centred on the sun and 'partake' "of the sun's annual motion about the Earth."

How that affects satellite calculations via geocentric versus heliocentric approachs I cannot say at this point but I trust that Dr Bouw may have some publication on it. So far I haven't located one but I think he should be keen to address the matter. (He's at a conference at present.)

I will consult the site on Solar B in due course and in the meantime, for general interest, here is a site that criticises Dr Bouw and one in which he sets out a detailed response.

Note that the first writer, like Bouw, is a creationist.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

http://www.geocentricity.com/
ba1/fresp/index.html

I trust that a response from Dr Bouw will be forthcoming. It is clearly in his interests to forward one.

alanorei said...

Re: satellites

Athemax said:

As an aside a satellite in polar orbit or indeed any orbit except equatorial is proof positive that the Earth rotates. Every time they go round the planet has turned and they go over a different part of the surface, If the Earth wasn't turning then it would go over the same bit time and time again.


Dr Bouw addresses the limiting case of the stationary or geosynchronous satellite in his book, p 286-7. These are located approximately 24,000 miles above the equator.

I note your comment above about equatorial satellites but Dr Bouw describes how the gravitational pull of the part of the universe "above" the satellite is matched by that of the combined pull of the part of the universe "below" it plus that of the Earth.

Thus the satellite remains stationary above a particular point on the equator, i.e. at an altitude of about 24,000 miles.

From the geocentric point of view, the universe is rotating, so its gravitational pull is equivalent to a centrifugal force and the geocentric model gives the same result as the heliocentric model.

However, Dr Bouw adds that "The same type of pull, though not necessarily at the same strength, is felt by any satellite at any altitude."

Any resultant imbalance would be resolved by a satellite following a particular orbit. As Malcom Bowden says, True Science Agrees With the Bible p 511-12, a satellite launched at a higher speed than that of a geosynchronous satellite will assume a higher orbit than a geosynchronous satellite, and a lower orbit at a lower speed.

It would appear from both Bouw's and Bowden's comments that the same force balance principle applies equally for non-equatorial satellites and again, the same results are yielded by both the geocentric (modified Tychonic) and heliocentric models.

I suggest that a non-stationary satellite, e.g. a polar satellite, would on that basis rotate with the universe as well as circling the Earth in a modified Tychonic geocentric reference frame and that would account for its position above different points on the Earth's surface during succesive orbits, i.e. once again, the same result as given by the heliocentric approach.

Anonymous said...

If you accept that gravitational attraction is proportional to mass and inversley proportional to the square of the distance (as Newton showed) then there is no way that the gravitational pull of stars many light years away can possibly compete with the pull of the earth only a few hundred or thousand miles distant.

alanorei said...

Anonymous said...
If you accept that gravitational attraction is proportional to mass and inversley proportional to the square of the distance (as Newton showed) then there is no way that the gravitational pull of stars many light years away can possibly compete with the pull of the earth only a few hundred or thousand miles distant.


Bouw addresses this on pp 288, 314-16 of his book, citing the work of German physicist, Hans Thirring, in 1918, who showed that in a geocentric universe, centrifugal forces become real gravitational forces and "become very, very great at distances far from the earth."

This is a useful point, where it would be good to have further clarification but it appears that the geocentric model is consistent with observations.

athemax said...

Going to show that Bouw really does have no idea what he's talking about. The gravity of the Earth is far less than that of the Sun and if it was all down to just gravity then there is no point where the gravity of the Earth would balance out that of the Sun. Get a decent textbook and read up on orbital velocity. You continue to quote Bouw as if he is a respected authority when in fact he is widely regarded with about as much respect as David Icke and his purple lizards. You still haven't answered my question on non-geostationary satellites (which is most of them)

athemax said...

Actually my previous point doesn't come across as clearly as I intended. Thhere are 5 points where the gravity of the Sun and the Earth do balance each other out they're called Lagrange points, though only L4 and L5 are stable. The L1, L2 and L3 points aren't which is why Soho at the L1 point oscillates slightly and ocasionally needs to adjust it's position.

Hoolie said...

We can demonstrate that the Earth rotatess on its axis by building Foucault pendulums at points on the Earth's surface and noting how the time taken for each pendulum's axis to rotate through 360 degrees varies with latitude in a regular manner.

Once we accept that then we can move on. Newton's Law of Gravity tells us that the Earth must rotate around the Sun and not vice versa.

Astronomical observations of the motion of the planets confirm this. Space probes are sent to other planets with calculations using Newtonian dynamics which would not simply not work in any framework other than the one that modern science believes.

It's a bit scary that we are debating this in the 21st century!

hoolie said...

Oh and harping back to an equally mad thread about the Earth being six thousand years old, well the opinion of every scientist involved in Cosmology, Astronomy or Physics is that Red Shifts and the fusion processes that occur whithin stars firmly date them in the billions of years range.

Finally the speed of light has definitely not changed significantly in the past. Why? Look at the spectra of starlight from a distant source. It has the same characteristics as light from our own sun after red shift is taken into account. Any change in lightspeed would also massively alter the rate of fusion taking place within stars (including our own Sun)

alex said...

Hehe, there's some SERIOUSLY bad science on reformation.org!

Anonymous said...

A highly amusing thread - a welcome relief from the others.

The idiots who didn't get the joke were particularly amusing.

hoolie: Newton was wrong about gravity - did you not get the memo? His theory required instantaneous action at a distance and a universal frame of reference, notions later seen to be inconsistent with James 3:12-23, Mark 4:6-12 and Matthew 6:18-22.

Contact Law said...

Legal Advice

Contact Law can assist you with any legal issue. We have a network of 4,000 solicitors across the UK and a legal helpline service that can quickly assist you with your legal problem. We ensure that you get a quick and cost effective answer to your legal problem.

http://www.contactlaw.co.uk/legaladvice/

Jay said...

I want bit information about current ferry to france services. Long back I've travelled on Norfolkline, at that time the ferries to france services were good and affordable. Any personal experiences? I'm planning to make my trip in next couple of days.

Ashley said...

I want a bit information about ferries to france which leads to France by
cheap ferries

Anonymous said...

http://www.djmal.net/thaspot/members/viagrakaufend
[b]FREE VIAGRA BESTELLEN VIAGRA[/b]
http://www.serataanime.it/forum2/member.php?u=336
[b]VIAGRA on line VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BESTELLEN[/b]
VIAGRA BESTELLEN eur 0.85 Pro Pille >> Klicken Sie Hier << BESTELLEN BILLIG VIAGRA CIALIS VIAGRA online kaufen KAUFIN BILLIG VIAGRA ONLINE
http://www.sembrasil.com.br/assets/snippets/forum/viewtopic.php?t=145
[b]VIAGRA Holland VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BILLIG[/b]
[url=http://www.einvestorhelp.com/member.php?u=37776]VIAGRA REZEPTFREI PREISVERGLECH[/url] - VIAGRA Kaufen
[b]alternativ zu VIAGRA VIAGRA BILLIG BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA rezeptfrei VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH BILLIG[/b]
[url=http://www.postyouradforfree.com/showthread.php?p=313013]VIAGRA BILLIG BESTELLEN[/url] - PFIZER VIAGRA
[b]VIAGRA alternatives BILLIG VIAGRA REZEPTFREI BESTELLEN[/b]
[b]VIAGRA rezeptfrei VIAGRA PREISVERGLECH REZEPTFREI[/b]
[b]VIAGRA® kaufen
VIAGRA Deutschland
VIAGRA online kaufen
VIAGRA on line
VIAGRA alternativ
VIAGRA rezeptfrei
VIAGRA Kaufen
VIAGRA Apotheke[/b]

invierta en proyectos said...

I look forward to reading more on the topic in the future. Keep up the good work! This blog is going to be great resource. Love reading it.

Anonymous said...

I'll preface this by saying I do not believe in the KJB, so please don't use to it in anything you say as proof. Let this issue stand on it's own merits.
So let me allow for a moment the possibility of the sun rotating around the earth. How the hell do you plan to explain the gravitational forces involved in this? Or are one of those people who say the sun is much smaller than it is? Or is magic keeping everything rotating around us. I noticed in the link the guy made the grievous error of saying, "This is obviously very embarrassing to the heliocentric people because the sun is not supposed to move. The sun does move however, and twice a year it is over the equator. " He obviously does not understand relativism. Science says everything is moving, including the sun and the earth. Relative to the sun, however, all evidence seems to indicate that due to it's large mass and gravitational force the earth and all smaller bodies tend to orbit it.

Ps. Geo centrism, a symbolic representation of the human need to make everything go around himself :P.
PSS. one more bit of lulz, I think it's amusing he posted something the head of the Caananite gods said, "And ELOHIM said, Let US make man in our image, after OUR likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."