Re: Boikat learns the hard way that Stellar Parallax is IDENTICAL

Ernest Major wrote:
In message <Y5SdnSejGuSr-w_Q4p2dnAA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman <jharshman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
In message <oZidnfA8V87_kAzQ4p2dnAA@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, John Harshman
<jharshman@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes
chris thompson wrote:
On Mar 28, 4:12 pm, John Harshman <jharsh...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dana Tweedy wrote:
On 3/28/11 11:51 AM, Mike Dworetsky wrote:
[snip Tony's quotemining]



Absolutely NOTHING has changed in cosmology to change the
opinion of these greats. However, all of them were aware of
at least three experiments which tended to show that the Earth
was NOT moving.
Actually, something did happen. It's called Einstein's General
Theory of
Relativity. You stopped reading with the Special Theory which
deals with
frames moving at constant relative speed. You also neglect to
mention
the
SR solution that Einstein came up with, which has withstood
EVERY test so
far: the speed of light c in a vacuum is constant for all
observers regardless of their motion. That niftily explained
the otherwise inexplicable Michelson-Morley result, and as it
turns out it matches all
physical observations of diverse phenomena.
With Einstein's General Theory came ways to deal with
accelerating frames of
reference. If GR was wrong, your SatNav and mobile phone GPS
would not
work.
The extra 43 arc sec per century of Mercurian perihelion advance
is due
entirely to the existence of general relativistic effects deep
in the gravity well of the Sun. It could only happen if
Mercury orbited the Sun.
Tony is a Tychonian, so that's irrelevant.

All the evidences attested to in other threads are proofs of the
Earth orbiting the Sun--or, rather, the barycentre:
Annual abberation ellipses of ALL stars have the same amplitude
and size (in arc sec), irrespective of stellar distance. This
matches precisely the predictions of a moving Earth in the
heliocentric theory.
It also works if all stars have little, perfectly aligned,
elliptical orbits the same size and shape of the earth's supposed
orbit. Weird, yes, but it explains the data. Don't ask me why
stars would do that.
Stars have annual parallax. For centuries, religious authorities
used the absence of parallax to condemn Galileo's theories. But
eventually parallax (which was so small that it was difficult to
observe) was found, and modern observations show that the
distances obtained result in observed stars having the right
luminosities and radii (or temperatures) to match predicted
structures and evolution of stars based on *Earthbound nuclear
physics experiments* to a high level of accuracy.
Again, the same would result from all stars making little
ellipses.
Stars have annual doppler shifts due to the Earth orbiting the
barycentre at about 30 km/sec. This observation would not be
possible if the Earth were not moving. The doppler shifts are
independent of distance, but parallax is not.
And again.

I also wonder how Tony explains such things as sungrazing
comets, and annual meteor showers, both which would be difficult
to account for with
a fixed Earth that sits at the center of the solar system.
They also work in a Tychonian framework.
All true, John, but be fair. Such eccentricities in planetary
orbits have never been observed, and we really should have seen
them by now. The first stellar parallax discovered was that of 61
Cygni in 1838 (fide Wikipedia) and most reasonable people accept
that we should have noticed odd orbits of the planets in our own
system since then.
What eccentricities? You've lost me here.

Probes like Mariner and Venera and Galileo and the Huygens probe
would not have hit the celestial body at which they were aimed if
the earth was not orbiting the sun. Unless, that is, you wish to
posit a vast conspiracy by the international community's space
agencies to keep the geocentric nature of Sol system a secret,
which I do not put past Tony (if only for trolling purposes).
How would the orbits of probes differ in a Tychonian system? As far
as I can see, they wouldn't.

Either Newton's Law of Gravity doesn't apply in a Tychonian System,
or if Tony clutches at a straw, we've mismeasured the masses of the
sun and the planets (I doubt that a consistent set of masses can be
produced to save the Tychonian system). In either case the forces
acting on the probes aren't the ones that we use to calculate their
orbits, so the probes wouldn't go where we intended them to go.
I don't believe that's true. Locally, the new Tychonian system is
just a transformation of the usual one. Everything should be the same.
I was ruminating on this point on the train journey to work this morning. General Relativity gives us an independent way of measuring solar mass, through the displacement caused by deviation of light passing close to the sun. And this mass agrees with what we get from orbital analysys, for example.

Not relevant. Tony's system doesn't involve any differences in mass of objects from the standard system.

How do you know this?

Because he makes no such argument.

How the Earth could be the centre of the solar system while a mass around a million times as large is somehow forced to orbit around it, along with the other planets orbiting the Sun, is an untenable position.

Only if you adopt a coordinate system in which objects revolve around their mutual center of mass. But any other center works as well in Newtonian physics.



.

Relevant Pages