(July 27, 2016 at 9:59 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 27, 2016 at 9:42 am)Alex K Wrote: Well. Depends on what you mean by a model being right or wrong. One is certainly simpler than the other, but is one wrong because of that?

Maybe the easiest way to tell is by putting a camera on another planet and measuring how it moves relative to the fixed stars...  

Think of the Earth's shadow:


If the Sun went around the Earth instead of the Earth around the Sun, then the shadow of the Earth would make a 360 degree path each and every day.  This phenomenon could be easily observed.

(July 29, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(July 27, 2016 at 9:59 am)pocaracas Wrote: Maybe the easiest way to tell is by putting a camera on another planet and measuring how it moves relative to the fixed stars...  

Think of the Earth's shadow:


If the Sun went around the Earth instead of the Earth around the Sun, then the shadow of the Earth would make a 360 degree path each and every day.  This phenomenon could be easily observed.

OMG you're right! Like for example, if you're on earth it would be dark for almost half the time. There's no way we'd miss that!

(July 29, 2016 at 11:04 pm)Alex K Wrote:

(July 29, 2016 at 9:57 pm)Jehanne Wrote: Think of the Earth's shadow:


If the Sun went around the Earth instead of the Earth around the Sun, then the shadow of the Earth would make a 360 degree path each and every day.  This phenomenon could be easily observed.

OMG you're right! Like for example, if you're on earth it would be dark for almost half the time. There's no way we'd miss that!

Ha, ha Alex!  (By the way, I am still waiting on that example for Carroll's equation.)  From Earth, yes, it would be a question of night/day, and therefore, really hard to parse.  But, how about at a Lagrange point?  Say, at L1, L2, L4 and L5 simultaneously?  What the hell, throw in L3 just for kicks?  We have unlimited funds to spend on this project, right?  And, here's a diagram for geocentrists who are willing to have a go:

Jehanne,

Yes you're right. The Lagrange points are a prediction of the newtonian laws of motion, and if you throw that away and go to a geocentric picture, to explain observations all those epicyclic convoluted laws of planetary motion need to be postulated ad hoc without a sound theoretical base. One could of course simply postulate the lagrange points as well ( because if you don't have a unifying theoretical framework, anything goes) but there is no theoretical *reason* for them to be there, no prediction, because the geocentric model has little predictive power beyond what is put in explicitely.

(July 30, 2016 at 9:01 am)Alex K Wrote: Jehanne,

Yes you're right. The Lagrange points are a prediction of the newtonian laws of motion, and if you throw that away and go to a geocentric picture, to explain observations all those epicyclic convoluted laws of planetary motion need to be postulated ad hoc without  a sound theoretical base. One could of course simply postulate the lagrange points as well ( because if you don't have a unifying theoretical framework, anything goes) but there is no theoretical *reason* for them to be there, no prediction, because the geocentric model has little predictive power beyond what is put in explicitely.

Predictions, bah. Lagrange points would simply require a few more of those geocentrically rotating transparent celestial spheres that had already been postulated for planets and the sun to be embedded in.

(July 30, 2016 at 11:41 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 30, 2016 at 9:01 am)Alex K Wrote: Jehanne,

Yes you're right. The Lagrange points are a prediction of the newtonian laws of motion, and if you throw that away and go to a geocentric picture, to explain observations all those epicyclic convoluted laws of planetary motion need to be postulated ad hoc without  a sound theoretical base. One could of course simply postulate the lagrange points as well ( because if you don't have a unifying theoretical framework, anything goes) but there is no theoretical *reason* for them to be there, no prediction, because the geocentric model has little predictive power beyond what is put in explicitely.

Predictions, bah.  Lagrange points would simply require a few more of those geocentrically rotating transparent celestial spheres that had already been postulated for planets and the sun to be embedded in.  

I don't think that such a mathematical model exists, period, no matter how many epicycles are thrown in.  Forgot about the inverse square law, Newtonian mechanics, and all the rest.  Observationally speaking, one could observe the rotation of the Earth at the Lagrange points, and a geocentric model of the solar system could not simply account for those observations, even assuming an Earth-centered view of things.

https://youtu.be/8GZdZUouzBY

That is all

(August 4, 2016 at 10:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: [Today's date = 2^2/2^3/2^4]

I wish! It's actually 2^2/2^3/(2^5)*(3^2)*(7)

(August 4, 2016 at 10:36 am)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

(August 4, 2016 at 10:28 am)pocaracas Wrote: [Today's date = 2^2/2^3/2^4]

I wish! It's actually 2^2/2^3/(2^5)*(3^2)*(7)

Shove that under the carpet!!