Author Topic: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration? (Read 4338 times)

Stanley N · « **Reply #15 on:** September 04, 2018, 08:04:37 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 03, 2018, 12:43:01 PM

There is no use in denying! Every reader can see that you implicitly assume a certain reference frame. Talking about a "change of reference frame", there obviously has to be a chosen reference frame.

If you to force a particular reference frame, as geocentrists appear to do (at the same time contradictorily invoking relativity), you may end up with various fictitious forces and other artifacts (epicycles, for example).

Have you worked out these details of a geocentric system, either physically or mathematically?

This suggests that at least you, individually, have not:

Quote from: Struthio on September 03, 2018, 01:07:00 PM

What "implications" are you referring to?

The relative motions of earth, sun, and stars are independent of the choice of a reference system. That is the case in classical models as well as in relativistic models.

Consequently there are no "implications" concerning aberration!

Since you have not presented a detailed geocentric model, it's somewhat difficult to give any details about implications.

But if you're going to say that aberration depends ONLY on the velocity of the source, you appear to be implicitly assuming the emission theory of light. You might want to look at the De Sitter experiments.

Stanley N · « **Reply #16 on:** September 04, 2018, 08:54:00 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 03, 2018, 12:43:01 PM

Also, right from the beginning you talk about a "velocity of the observer". It is not appropriate to talk about a "velocity of the observer", if there is no given reference frame with respect to which the observer is moved or at rest.

Take it up with Happenby's quote, then:

Quote from: happenby on September 03, 2018, 06:39:24 PM

Aberration of light - Wikipedia
The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration, stellar aberration, or velocity aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, dependent on the velocity of the observer.

Struthio · « **Reply #17 on:** September 04, 2018, 09:24:32 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 04, 2018, 08:04:37 AM

If you to force a particular reference frame, as geocentrists appear to do (at the same time contradictorily invoking relativity), you may end up with various fictitious forces and other artifacts (epicycles, for example).

We were talking about "the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration" (see the topic's title and OP). We were not talking about forces. You have shown that you lack a basic understanding of relative movement and reference frames. Now you start shifting goalposts after having learned that aberration is not a proof against geocentrism.

Why do you mention epicycles? They're not a problem neither classically nor relativistically, neither geocentric, nor heliocentric, nor whatever centric.

Quote from: Stanley N on September 04, 2018, 08:04:37 AM

Have you worked out these details of a geocentric system, either physically or mathematically?

This suggests that at least you, individually, have not:Since you have not presented a detailed geocentric model, it's somewhat difficult to give any details about implications.

Why? Did you individually work out a heliocentric model? Do you want to brag about having worked out a cosmological model?

Now, there are various cosmological models, including geocentric models as well as non-relativistic models implementing Machs postulate allowing for geocentrism (for an example see e.g. ifi.unicamp.br: Relational Mechanics by Andre K.T. Assis [PDF]). There are no problems, neither concerning forces nor epicycles.

Also, you have George Ellis, co-author of "The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time" with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking. Look what he says:

Quote from: Scientific American, October 1995, ‘Thinking Globally, Acting Universally’

‘People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations’, Ellis argues. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.’ Ellis has published a paper on this. ‘You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.’

Hawking himself also says that they hold on to the "Copernican Principle" (rejecting geocentrism) in spite of having no proof against geocentrism (Stephen Hawking, "Die Illustrierte Kurze Geschichte der Zeit", Rowohlt 1988, Kapitel 3 "Das expandierende Universum", Seite 56).

Struthio · « **Reply #18 on:** September 04, 2018, 09:49:09 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 04, 2018, 08:54:00 AM

Take it up with Happenby's quote, then:
Quote from: happenby on September 03, 2018, 06:39:24 PM
Quote from: Wikipedia
The aberration of light (also referred to as astronomical aberration, stellar aberration, or velocity aberration) is an astronomical phenomenon which produces an apparent motion of celestial objects about their true positions, dependent on the velocity of the observer.

Didn't I explain enough about the "velocity of the observer"? Didn't you understand that such a wording implies a chosen reference frame, Stanley N?

Don't you see, that they simply assume that "celestial objects" are not moved (beside an apparent motion due to aberration)?

Is it any wonder that Wikipedia like most of the astronomical establishment is spreading lies and BS, is trying to fool you? They don't quote Hawking or Ellis who admit that there is no scientific proof against geocentrism (see post above). They don't quote Edwin Hubble either:

Quote from: Edwin Hubble

The assumption of uniformity has much to be said in its favour. If the distribution were not uniform, it would either increase with distance, or decrease. But we would not expect to find a distribution in which the density increases with distance, symmetrically in all directions. Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

caltech.edu

Hubble rejects geocentrism, because it is "unwelcome".

Quote from: Edwin Hubble

The departures from uniformity are positive; the numbers of nebulae increase faster than the volume of space through which they are scattered. Thus the density of the nebular distribution increases outwards, symmetrically in all directions, leaving the observer in a unique position. Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable; moreover, it represents a discrepancy with the theory, because the theory postulates homogeneity.

caltech.edu

Hubble rejects geocentrism, because it also is "intolerable".

That's how modern science works, how the foes of the Church of our Lord have no proof against geocentrism. They could chose a geocentric model, as George Ellis explains. The reason they don't: because they hate Christ and His Church.

Stanley N · « **Reply #19 on:** September 04, 2018, 11:01:39 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 04, 2018, 09:24:32 AM

We were talking about "the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration" (see the topic's title and OP). We were not talking about forces. You have shown that you lack a basic understanding of relative movement and reference frames. Now you start shifting goalposts after having learned that aberration is not a proof against geocentrism.

We were talking about geocentrists providing a working explanation of aberration. That means how it comes about and the details that result. You have failed to do this. And in my attempt to help you along, you now accuse me of lacking understanding. You're the one shifting goalposts.

Are you willing give some modicuм of an explanation for aberration in a geocentric system, or even show an awareness of the basic observations related to aberration?

Stanley N · « **Reply #20 on:** September 04, 2018, 04:56:00 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 04, 2018, 09:24:32 AM

Why do you mention epicycles? They're not a problem neither classically nor relativistically, neither geocentric, nor heliocentric, nor whatever centric.

I asked for the geocentric model is to explain aberration. You said aberration depends only on the motion of the source, so I thought this meant the source moved in a cycle (since the earth isn't moving in your system, right?). But you don't know why I mentioned epicycles? And you've also dismissed fictitious forces, so apparently that's not causing aberration. So I still don't know your model.

You appear not to grasp the relevance of binary stars. Binary systems are pretty common and many of them cycle with substantial velocity relative to earth. If ONLY motion of the source (or for that matter, ONLY relative motion!) is what causes aberration, then these binary stars should have substantial aberration. But to my knowledge, that's not what is observed.

Finally, you state there is "no scientific proof against geocentrism". Wow, that's really a ringing endorsement! I'm just looking for a geocentric model that matches observation to start with.

Stanley N · « **Reply #21 on:** September 05, 2018, 07:48:34 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 03, 2018, 12:43:01 PM

Imagine a big raining cloud above your head. Reference frame for movement is the ground beneath your feet:

Case 1: You don't move. The cloud does not move.
=> drops hit the ground coming from vertically above
=> drops hit your head coming from vertically above

Case 2: You move. The cloud does not move.
=> drops hit the ground coming from vertically above
=> drops hit your head coming from a diagonal direction with respect to your moved head

Case 3: You don't move. The cloud moves.
=> drops hit the ground coming from a diagonal direction with respect to the ground
=> drops hit your head coming from a diagonal direction with respect to your head

Your head is the observer. The observation is the same in cases 2 and 3. Drops coming in diagonally.

Conclusion: One does not have to invoke relativity to recognize that aberration does only depend on relative motion of observer (your head) and source (cloud).

You're saying the velocity of the star is added to the velocity of light?

Here's why that doesn't work to explain aberration in a geocentric system in classical physics. Aberration changes in a cycle. In a geocentric system you have to attribute the motion to the star.

Imagine your cloud oscillating back and forth. The rain hitting your head in your case 3 is not coming from the same point. So if this explanation is really what you mean, stars on the ecliptic plane are not approximately point sources, but must be lines that oscillate back and forth. (And with a period that exactly matches what would be the orbit of the earth, if the earth were orbiting like every other body does.)

But for stars off the ecliptic plane, say at the ecliptic pole, stars cannot just be lines of light, but something more complex. Care to come up with one that would work?

Struthio · « **Reply #22 on:** September 05, 2018, 09:37:10 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 05, 2018, 07:48:34 AM

Here's why that doesn't work to explain aberration in a geocentric system in classical physics. Aberration changes in a cycle. In a geocentric system you have to attribute the motion to the star.

Imagine you have a real mechanical model of earth, sun, and stars. You hold the sun between two fingers, and all other objects move. On the earth there is glued a micro camera recording a video. Examining the video, you will find aberration, as seen from earth.

Then you take the earth between two fingers. This time, the earth is fixed and all other objects move. The camera records a second video.

Since it is one and the same model in both cases, all relative motion is identical in both cases. The two videos will be identical (disregarding the background). All movements of the sun and of the stars as seen from earth will appear identical in both videos.

Examining the second video, the geocentric video, you will find the exact same aberration, as seen from earth.

Aberration is not due to the motion of the observer with respect to the sun, but due to the motion of the observer with respect to the observed star. More exactly: due to the relative motion between observer and observed star. Thus, it doesn't matter whether the sun or the earth is fixed. You could even hold any star or planet between two fingers, and the video will again show the same movements as seen from earth.

The difference between the heliocentric and the geocentric view is: The heliocentrist says: aberration is apparent, it is an effect due to a movement of the observer. The geocentrist says: aberration is a real additional movement of the stars while the observer is not moved.

So indeed, like you say, in the geocentric view the motion is attributed to the star.

Note that the additional movement of the stars does not imply any problem with gravitational forces for any model implementing Mach's principle.

Stanley N · « **Reply #23 on:** September 07, 2018, 01:35:40 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 05, 2018, 09:37:10 AM

Since it is one and the same model in both cases, all relative motion is identical in both cases. The two videos will be identical (disregarding the background). All movements of the sun and of the stars as seen from earth will appear identical in both videos.

You have asserted it is the same in both cases, but that's not obvious. Consider the twin thought experiment, where the twins age differently although for each twin the motion of the other looks the same. Even if I were to grant that it is the same in kinematics (the description of paths taken by objects), it is not the same in kinetics (consideration of forces). Accelerometers, for example, will not record the same in your two cases.

And what I'm asking about - what causes aberration - is at least partly kinetics. You may have faith that it works out, but that doesn't show how it works out. What forces or geodesics or other features cause aberration in a geocentric system? I still don't know what geocentrists think it is.

Frankly, I'm coming to suspect that geocentrists have not actually worked out the equations of motion, theory of light, and theory of gravity or geodesics necessary in a geocentric system. I'm not picking on you, you just happen to be who responded. I'm pretty sure Sungenis hasn't worked out these details either, or someone would have been able to quote from him by now.

These details in a geocentric system would most likely have measurable consequences and could be tested, and possibly have been tested. Observation of binary stars are relevant and would appear to go contrary to the notion that aberration is from mere relative velocity.

Stanley N · « **Reply #24 on:** September 08, 2018, 06:40:48 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 05, 2018, 09:37:10 AM

Thus, it doesn't matter whether the sun or the earth is fixed. You could even hold any star or planet between two fingers, and the video will again show the same movements as seen from earth.

So the universe could be centered on Alpha Centari, or a star in a distant galaxy? If there is no observational way to know, then it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, that is, it's not science. Are you admitting that geocentrism as a whole is not scientific?

But you must realize that the geocentric system with a fixed earth has a LOT of overhead! Not only is the sun moving around the earth every day, but it's actually orbiting the barycenter of the earth-sun system. The barycenter has some wobbles (associated with the other planets), and the sun's orbit around the barycenter also has some wobbles. Then you also have the stars moving around the earth, but they're also moving annually in a 150million kilometer ellipse (around nothing - this is not even a barycenter). These ellipses not only have wobbles, but also tilt to stay parallel with the plane of the sun's quasi-elliptical movement around earth. This is a very complicated movement! And the stars at different distances are also arranged in such a way that after light time delay, their movements appear to an earth observer to be in perfect sync. The sun and the stars also move at speeds far too fast to be explained by the standard law of gravity, so something else is going on. That's just a start!

Yet all these are explained by the standard system. A system that made came about by determining and testing predictions.

Struthio · « **Reply #25 on:** September 09, 2018, 07:13:26 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 08, 2018, 06:40:48 PM

So the universe could be centered on Alpha Centari, or a star in a distant galaxy? If there is no observational way to know, then it's not a falsifiable hypothesis, that is, it's not science. Are you admitting that geocentrism as a whole is not scientific?

Quote from: Wikipedia

Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld wrote in The Evolution of Physics (1938): "Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS (=coordinate systems), not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any CS. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS. Could we build a real relativistic physics valid in all CS; a physics in which there would be no place for absolute, but only for relative, motion? This is indeed possible!"^[46]

Despite giving more respectability to the geocentric view than Newtonian physics does,^[47] relativity is not geocentric. Rather, relativity states that the Sun, the Earth, the Moon, Jupiter, or any other point for that matter could be chosen as a center of the solar system with equal validity.^[48]

en.wikipedia.org

Well, you should start with Einstein, Hawking, Ellis, Hubble & Cia, and not with Struthio. Their astronomy is not scientific in the sense of Karl Popper's criterion of falsifiability:

Quote from: Wikipedia

Karl Popper criticized the cosmological principle on the grounds that it makes "our lack of knowledge a principle of knowing something". He summarized his position as:
the “cosmological principles” were, I fear, dogmas that should not have been proposed.^[7]

en.wikipedia.org

Struthio · « **Reply #26 on:** September 09, 2018, 07:21:28 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 07, 2018, 01:35:40 PM

And what I'm asking about - what causes aberration - is at least partly kinetics.

Quote

Meanwhile, Einstein's 1905 paper on the electrodynamics of moving bodies included a greatly simplified derivation of the full Lorentz transformation, dispensing with the ether altogether, and analyzing a variety of phenomena, including aberration, from a purely kinematical point of view. All the difficulties and ambiguities in the prior attempts to explain aberration instantly vanished.

mathpages.com

On the other hand, in a non-relativistic Machian universe, difficulties are the same for heliocentrists and geocentrists.

Struthio · « **Reply #27 on:** September 09, 2018, 07:45:42 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 07, 2018, 01:35:40 PM

These details in a geocentric system would most likely have measurable consequences and could be tested, and possibly have been tested. Observation of binary stars are relevant and would appear to go contrary to the notion that aberration is from mere relative velocity.

Go ahead and disprove modern astronomy!

Struthio · « **Reply #28 on:** September 09, 2018, 07:53:15 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on September 08, 2018, 06:40:48 PM

But you must realize that the geocentric system with a fixed earth has a LOT of overhead! Not only is the sun moving around the earth every day, but it's actually orbiting the barycenter of the earth-sun system. The barycenter has some wobbles (associated with the other planets), and the sun's orbit around the barycenter also has some wobbles. Then you also have the stars moving around the earth, but they're also moving annually in a 150million kilometer ellipse (around nothing - this is not even a barycenter). These ellipses not only have wobbles, but also tilt to stay parallel with the plane of the sun's quasi-elliptical movement around earth. This is a very complicated movement! And the stars at different distances are also arranged in such a way that after light time delay, their movements appear to an earth observer to be in perfect sync. The sun and the stars also move at speeds far too fast to be explained by the standard law of gravity, so something else is going on. That's just a start!

Yet all these are explained by the standard system. A system that made came about by determining and testing predictions.

You're joking. The standard system of astronomy does not describe the observations without postulating huge amounts of invisible dark matter.

Also, the standard model of astronomy does not disprove the geocentric view of the Church. As Karl Popper observed, the standard model of astronomy rejects the geocentric view of the Church introducing "dogmas that should not have been proposed" (see quote in comment above).

Struthio · « **Reply #29 on:** September 09, 2018, 07:56:55 AM »

Quote from: Struthio on September 09, 2018, 07:53:15 AM

the standard model of astronomy does not disprove the geocentric view of the Church. As Karl Popper observed, the standard model of astronomy rejects the geocentric view of the Church introducing "dogmas that should not have been proposed" (see quote in comment above).

Also, please recall the quotes of Hawking, Ellis, and Hubble above!

Author Topic: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration? (Read 4338 times)

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Stanley N

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?

Struthio

Re: What is the geocentrist explanation for stellar aberration?