/sci/ - Science & Math

Because orbital dynamics works.

>>2493142
Io.

Impossible. Prove to me that god doesn't exist.

because the earth is at the center of the universe

It's true, from a certain point of view.

Because pretty much the only way to explain away the movement of the planets as we see them from Earth in a geocentric model is epicycli, and that is not how gravity works.

Because if that were true, any star further than 0.16 lightyears away would have to revolve arround earth at faster than lightspeed.

There is no true or false, both systems are equally true, if two bodies rotate around one another then both can be seen as the center, however our understanding of gravity dictates that the sun, not the earth, is the epicenter of mass and moreover gravitational pull in the solar system

Prove to me that OP is not a faggot. You can't.

>>2493198
circular motion is not relative like linear motion

so you're wrong

Gibbous phases of Venus have been observed, which are impossible under geocentricism.

>>2493194
/clap
very elegant solution

>captcha: retrograde motion

>>2493198
actually, the solar systems centre of mass is slightly outside the surface of the sun. all the planets, and the sun as well, orbit this point.

i don't have to prove shit we know this for a long tiem u are full of shit op u know nothing

>>2493247
uh well

they don't orbit it

they just sort of wobble around it

>>2493236
no, this could occur even if geocentrism was true.

>>2493194
Can you explain why that would have to happen?

>>2493263
what is the difference?

>>2493265
Um, no it wouldn't. The only time in geocentricism when gibbous phases would occur is when Venus's apparently position is OUTSIDE of the already observed range of angles that Venus is away from the sun (i.e. >90°).

However, the observed gibbous phases are inside a region where Venus would be crescent under geocentric models.

Retrograde motion

>>2493281
well you see, imagine that a planet and the sun are a really big fat ice skater and a much slimmer ice skater. They are connected by a rope, and the slimmer one starts to skate around the bigger one. This is uniform circular motion. This means that the center of the circle that the slimmer person is doing is the fat person.

Planets make ellipses around the sun, not perfect circles. Ellipses have two foci, right. One of these foci is the sun, and the other foci is some point in space kinda near the sun. The planets are orbiting the sun, but they are orbiting the sun in an elliptical path. So I mean you could find the "exact center" of this ellipsoid and that would be the point that the planet's are going nicely around, but it's not the thing that they're orbiting. Because they're orbiting the sun.

Also the sun wobbles because as the planets zip around in their elliptical paths, it yanks on the sun a little. This causes the sun to do the wobble so very slightly. Mostly just because of jupiter.

Because the sun has a bigger gravitational pull than the earth does?

Why does mars move backwards for a month?

>>2493353
see:
>>2493305

>no on in the thread answers the question.

If that map is true.

Why are there points in time where Mercury is behind the sun? Same with Venus.

There's a better explanation but that simplifies it.

Fucking geocentric faggots.

Fixed

>>2493382
see
>>2493330

>>2493382
What the fuck is that?

>>2493330
That doesn't fucking work

THE SUN IS FARTHER THAN VENUS AND MERCURY.

FUCK.

Dammit i hate geocentric faggots.

>>2493142
LOL MUTHA FUCKIN TROLL WE GOT HERE

>>2493399
It isn't, mercury and venus orbit sun...sun orbits earth.

>>2493399
hahahaohwow.jpg

>>2493399
Sometimes mercury and venus will be behind the sun, thus the distance sun-earth < mercury-earth
sometimes.

Because clearly, OP is a fag.

>>2493414
That makes no fucking sense.

Explain mars then.

>>2493425
I Know that, but they can be closer then the sun can ever be to the earth.

I was referring to the closest they can be.

>>2493427
just google tychonic system

>>2493437
well Op's map is not precise. I'll look for a good one, there was one around the web

>>2493451
I found this one, it's not very precise as the one I remember
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/geocentric.html

>>2493458
another one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHSWVLwbbNw

>>2493449
looks like babbies first solar system model.

Someone draw that in 2nd grade?

>>2493290
nope.
consider geocentrism to just be 'every planet is a moon of the earth'.
if we can have a gibbous moon (and clearly we can, the real moon, luna) then we can have a gibbous venus, as it would just appear to be one of earths moons (but larger and further away)
pic related.

Retrograde motion of planets. Given gravity, initial velocities and inertia you'd need over 9000^9000 newtons to reverse direction.

Or Jesus does it.

>>2493465
Tycho de Brahe was probably more of an explorer than you will ever be regarding the status of scientific knowledge of his era.

>>2493467
That would still appear to us as a crescent because the Sun is on the same "side" as Venus.

Remember this diagram you should know well from your intro Astronomy class? The Sun is on the right side. The Moon is crescent when the Sun is on the same "side".

Seriously, I don't want to start throwing out insults carelessly, but you really need to look over what you're saying more carefully.

>>2493329
ah i see, thanks.

>>2493353
ah yes! genious! i forgot about that...

This is a fairly precise system..
I recommend zooming in
http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/nptolemy.html

>>2493473
too bad he didn't have space probes better telescopes and a better understanding of physics.

Still doesn't stop it from looking like a 2nd grade drawing.

>>2493494
this is a 4th grade drawing at least
http://people.sc.fsu.edu/~dduke/ntycho.html

>>2493142
How about observations from probes such as Voyager?

>>2493501
just another pov

>>2493194
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&xhr=t&q=sqrt((gravitational+constant)*(mass+of+earth)/(one+light
+year))&cp=63&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&am
p;aql=&oq=sqrt((gravitational+constant)*(mass+of+earth)/(one+light+year))&pbx=1&fp=c4eb9
49cb7a4107d

>>2493505
But isn't another pov enough to settle the "dispute"? Don't pictures show that the earth is between sun and outer planets?

>>2493247
Not always.

>>2493499
It helps perspective on why they thought earth was the center of the universe.

But it makes no sense, why not jupiter? or something with more mass.

The mass ratio makes no sense, so its retarded.

I think this is a good read
http://astroblogger.blogspot.com/2009/02/occams-razor-and-two-world-systems.html

>>2493479
ah i see...
kk, well in OP's diagram, venus will be a cresent (...just, about half illuminated) , but even with geocentrism it can be at both 'sides' as you put it...
wait, i'll try and draw a better diagram.

...

kk done.
i'm not trolling, i genuinly wanna understand (mmmm..2nd panel makes me want a fried egg... :) ..hehe )

so venus can be both crecent and gibbous in both models, amirite?

>>2493538
forgot pic...

>>2493542
Yes, I already mentioned this could work. However, we have NEVER seen Venus in the positions you have drawn. It has always been found close to the Sun (I forget the maximum angle, but I know it's <90°).

In addition to that, the gibbous Venus that HAS been observed has been in positions where Venus would be crescent under the geocentric model.

Thus, gibbous Venus is evidence against geocentricism on two fronts and alone disproves it, not to mention the vast amounts of other evidence people have described.

God obviously put us in the center of the universe, OP.

>This thread still exists

OP here. You all got trolled hard. Enjoy your leaking rectums.

>>2493558
I don't think you understand what geocentrism is. It doesn't presume that all the bodies orbit the earth in elliptical patterns. It describes the exact same motions as heliocentric, but from a different reference frame. 5000 years of astronomers knew very well that venus was always close to the sun, but plotted and tabulated them in a geocentric manner.

>>2493558
what do you mean we 'havent seen it'
...it would be observed to be the same in both cases

there are 4 panels, 2 geocentric configurations and 2 heliocentric configurations.

the angle EARTH,VENUS,SUN, can be seen in my picture, and there is one obtuse angle, and one acute angle in each case (corresponding with gibbous and crescent respectively)

>It [venus] has always been found close to the Sun
and in all 4 panels this is still the case. so whats your point?

>>2493606
wait, disregard this, i get it now.

...as in, you never see venus in the night sky... always only at dawn and dusk, still close to the sun...it never goes around earth, so you never find earth between venus and the sun...

yeh kk cool. thanks i get it.