[jimmy brousseau]

Is it possible that the geocentric system is right?

Can anyone out there prove “directly” that the earth revolves around the sun and that the entire universe does not revolve around the earth?

When one views our sky as a child, or an untrained, un-scientific observer looks into the night sky, I believed the first impression they have supports the geocentric system. It does appear, from the perspective of standing here on Earth and looking upwards, that the Earth is stationary and the rest of the universe revolves around the Earth.

Movement in space is relative. If there were a single object in space and nothing else, you would not be able to determine whether or not the object was moving. We know objects in space are moving, because their positions change relative to other objects. This however does not prove that the heliocentric system is correct or that the geocentric system is wrong? Physics and math increase the probability that the heliocentric system is correct but that is based on our own understanding of movement, time and space. Space has no known boundaries and no fixed objects. This can create a problem with perspective and relative movement. We have no definitive reference point to come to an absolute conclusion.

In space there are no boundaries, no starting and stopping points no fixed objects. Where is the center? One would have to know were the universe started and where it ends and all of its movements in between, to know where the center is. Scientists have only detected the relative motion of different objects in space over a very short period of time.

If we consider the “Prime Mover” theory and apply it to this argument, then anything is possible, including the geocentric theory. It’s hard to except the Prime Mover theory (God as the Prime Mover) and reconcile that with science as we know it. But then again, how do you get something from nothing? I have to say that I believe in the heliocentric system but I also believe that the geocentric system is possible, however I find this topic interesting and I know that there are people in both camps, with the majority in the heliocentric camp.

I would like to hear any thoughts on this subject and if possibly, any direct “proof” that is observable, physical, repeatable, comprehensive void of hearsay, popular, “expert” or majority opinions that supports or refutes either theory.

Note: I have read that mathematically speaking, several astronomers have said, one could make Jupiter the center of the universe and work out a mathematical model in which all the motions of the heavenly bodies are accounted for, is this true?

Jimmy Brousseau

[mkirkpatrick]

Welcome to Toequest Jimmy,will have to think about a reply!
regards michael.

[Guille]

Jimmy, welcome to the toequest forums.

Einstein wrote a paper explaining that with relativity we would be able to determine who was correct, whether the ptolemaic system or the copernican, for the space-time continuous is relative. But still, ten years later, with general relativity, he finally proved it:

The earth goes around the sun and not the other way round because the mass of the sun is bigger that of the earth (these have been measured) and therefore the gravitational curvature of the sun is bigger than that of the earth, so the earth is atracted to the sun, but repelled due to it's momentum, and these balanced forces make the earth move eliptically (not completelly circular, this was proved by Kepler) around the sun. The case with the universe is a bit more complex but just the basic idea is given with this one.

[jimmy brousseau]

GUILLE,

Thank you Sir for your reply and I must say that I agree with you for all the same reasons. I’m curious why there are some who believe that the heliocentric system could be wrong and that geocentric is possible. The arguments that I have researched regarding and against the heliocentric system use Jupiter as the center because of its large mass and density in relationship to Earth. Jupiter has size and density. Jupiter is a solid planet where the mass of the Sun is mostly gas. I’ve also read some research regarding magnetic fields and theories on gravity, planet rotation and centrifugal force(s), setting those other factors aside and focusing on the concept of mass and density, if the mass of an object is the main factor, does it matter what the “mass” consists of? In other words, does a body of the same size (circumference) made of solids have a greater or lesser attraction than one made of gasses? I know size makes a difference but so does density. How much larger do objects made of gas have to be in relationship to objects made of solids, to have the same density?

One reason I believe the Earth rotates around the sun is because astronomers have made discoveries which show the beginnings of early solar systems and we can also see these principals at work on a smaller scale, when it comes to man-made satellites orbiting the Earth. But other than size and density is it possible that there may be other factors, unknown, that cause these known attractions? If mass and density are the main causes for the attraction, then we should be able to place a bowling ball next to a marble in space and they should move towards each other, right? Without any external gravitational forces and in a vacuum shouldn’t the marble be attracted to the bowling ball because of the difference in mass and density? I don’t know if I use a good analogy here, maybe the objects of different sizes and density need to be made of iron instead of glass and plastic but you see the point I’m making. Have there been any studies on Earth, the Space Shuttle, the ISS, during early Lunar missions or any JPL exploration missions that have tested the theories of mass, density and attraction on a much smaller scale, i.e. using bowling balls and marbles, or is this impossible because of the overwhelming influences cause by the Sun and our planets? Finally (tongue-in-cheek) shouldn’t skinny girls be attracted to fat guys based on physics, size mass and density?

Humbly and Respectfully Submitted,

Jimmy Brousseau

[baudrunner]

Jupiter has size and density. Jupiter is a solid planet where the mass of the Sun is mostly gas.

Throw your astronomy reference out with the trash, my boy. Jupitor is just a big fat gas ball and the sun is comprised of a fusion furnace core surrounded by a solid iron mantle which in turn is surrounded by a sea of plasma.

I know size makes a difference

Yes Jimmy, but this is astronomy.

How much larger do objects made of gas have to be in relationship to objects made of solids, to have the same density?

Say what!??!?!!!?!

Without any external gravitational forces and in a vacuum shouldn’t the marble be attracted to the bowling ball because of the difference in mass and density?

Inertia, my boy, inertia.

Finally (tongue-in-cheek) shouldn’t skinny girls be attracted to fat guys based on physics, size mass and density?

That will be quite enough young man, this is not the forum for such frivolous remarks. Anyway, since we are on the topic, fat men are attracted to skinny girls, not the other way around. But it's not their fault. They are gullible, that's all. Skinny girls are popular because more of them can fit into a magazine page.

[Helz_Aftermath]

How much larger do objects made of gas have to be in relationship to objects made of solids, to have the same density?
I dont see how its really related but thats a density equation.
The (Density * Measurement of matter) simply needs to be equal for the two objects to have an equal gravitational force.

[jimmy brousseau]

Originally Posted by baudrunner Throw your astronomy reference out with the trash, my boy. Jupitor is just a big fat gas ball and the sun is comprised of a fusion furnace core surrounded by a solid iron mantle which in turn is surrounded by a sea of plasma. Yes Jimmy, but this is astronomy. Say what!??!?!!!?! Inertia, my boy, inertia. That will be quite enough young man, this is not the forum for such frivolous remarks. Anyway, since we are on the topic, fat men are attracted to skinny girls, not the other way around. But it's not their fault. They are gullible, that's all. Skinny girls are popular because more of them can fit into a magazine page.

baudrunner,

I just wanted to respond to comments you made to my somewhat “lighthearted” suggestions and read what your additional thoughts might be.


I will list my initial comments with your initial responses and add some more questions or observations for you to review and respond too...


1. I suggested that; my quote;

“Jupiter has size and density. Jupiter is a solid planet where the mass of the Sun is mostly gas.”

Moreover, your response was your quote;

“Throw your astronomy reference out with the trash, my boy. Jupitor is just a big fat gas ball and the sun is comprised of a fusion furnace core surrounded by a solid iron mantle which in turn is surrounded by a sea of plasma.”



First, did they change Jupiter’s name, I thought it was Jupiter and not “Jupitor”.
I know Jupiter is a “gaseous” planet, today. I used the term “solid plant” for the sake of an argument regarding Jupiter’s core (solid mass and density) because there exist current science that suggest that Jupiter has a core of solid matter, 6 to 10 times greater than Earth’s solid matter core. So at which point do we refer to Jupiter as a Solid planet surrounded by gas, rather than a gaseous planet with a solid core?



There has also recently been a “Jupiter” type planet with a massive solid core, so maybe you are correct in suggesting I throw away my “astronomy references”



http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050630_planet_core.html





Do I get to rename Jupiter, if it is reclassified as a “solid” planet, surrounded by gas? Which I believe it is...
If Earth had the same solid mass it has today and was surround by gas, how much of the surrounding gas would have to exist to then call Earth a “gas planet” with a solid core, as apposed to a “solid planet” surrounded by gas?




2. I suggested that; my quote;


“I know size makes a difference”


In addition, your response was your quote;



“Yes Jimmy, but this is astronomy.”


Size (mass/density) is everything in astronomy, when determining gravitational forces and arguing for or against the geocentric theory. So obviously “size does make a difference” especially when observing or discussing astronomy and these two opposing theories.


3. Finally, I suggested that; my quote;


“Without any external gravitational forces and in a vacuum shouldn’t the marble be attracted to the bowling ball because of the difference in mass and density?”



Your response was your quote;



“Inertia, my boy, inertia.”



I do not believe the force here is simply “inertia”. Inertia is generally used to describe a body persevering motion, the force, measured by the object’s speed and mass, traveling, uniformly in a straight line.


What I was referring to, was the forces, which are observed in planetary orbits, which are caused by Mass induced gravity, which attract objects in space and centrifugal force inertia and magnetic fields that repeal the same object in a constant balance to create a regular orbit. Therefore, your comment “Inertia, my boy, inertia.” by itself does not tell me anything or answer my question.


I am looking forward to your response, and as for you referring to me a "young man" thanks for the compliment, I have heard that in many decades...


Jimmy

[aristotle_is_retarded]

you're all retarded, why would you start an argument you know you are going to lose, of course they have proved it you idiots

[dleviwing]

Urmom;
I would expect your first post to be an introduction but, welcome to ToeQuest anyway. A person doesn’t have to be retarded to believe in the geocentric model, just ignorant. I don’t think this thread was meant to be serious!