Chris Thompson Claimed Dworetsky Proved the Earth Moves but can't quite bring himself to produce the link
T Pagano
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b990ccacc5304d95/513e5bda14949135?hl=en&q=talk.origins#513e5bda14949135
that Dworetsky proved that the Earth Moves.
On Mar 28th I replied here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b990ccacc5304d95/513e5bda14949135?hl=en&q=talk.origins#513e5bda14949135
that I would gladly respond to DWoretsky if Thompson produced the link
to Dworetshy's conclusive post.
On Mar 28th Thompson ran REAL hard here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b990ccacc5304d95/513e5bda14949135?hl=en&q=talk.origins#513e5bda14949135
for 26 lines instead of a one line link to Dworetsky's conclusive
proof.
And on the same day Thompson ran real hard in a SECOND POST here
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b990ccacc5304d95/513e5bda14949135?hl=en&q=talk.origins#513e5bda14949135
for another 5 lines instead of a one line link to Dworetsky's
conclusive proof.
This is pathetic. Thompson is terrified of a little 'ol creationist.
Does he have good reason to be terrified? In any event I will happily
reply or concede to the purported Dworetsky conclusive post whenever
Thompson grows a pair.
Regards,
T Pagano
RAM
> On Mar 28th Chris Thompson boldly claimed herehttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/b990cca...
> that Dworetsky proved that the Earth Moves.
>
> that I would gladly respond to DWoretsky if Thompson produced the link
> to Dworetshy's conclusive post.
>
> for 26 lines instead of a one line link to Dworetsky's conclusive
> proof.
>
> for another 5 lines instead of a one line link to Dworetsky's
> conclusive proof.
>
> This is pathetic. Thompson is terrified of a little 'ol creationist.
> Does he have good reason to be terrified? In any event I will happily
> reply or concede to the purported Dworetsky conclusive post whenever
> Thompson grows a pair.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
Silly as usual!
chris thompson
>
> - Show quoted text -
Looks like Column B in this post of mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/c3d0f7cd711fab8a?hl=en
was correct.
Chris
RAM
wrote:
Good prediction.
In reality, Tony is afraid of reality. He intuitively knows he will
find out what a fool he is.
Mike Dworetsky
Presumably others do not mind if I have a go. All the posts that I wrote
(Chris had one in mind, but I have about 8 or 9 in the thread) are in the
thread: "Boikat implies that he has conclusive evidence that the earth
revolves around the Sun. Einstein and Mach both disagreed", which you
yourself started, then ran away like Brave Sir Robin.
In fact, to enlighten you, I'll cut and paste my original text from those
threads and you can answer here, now. Or go back to the original thread and
answer there, where you ran away.
28/03/2011:
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
28/03/2011:
> 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.
In Tony's world, the more distant stars would have to have larger and larger
ellipses as their distances increased in order for this to happen, and
distant galaxies have the same size of aberrational ellipse as the nearest
stars. His only hope is to say that the stars are fixed onto a crystalline
sphere of one diameter only, centred on Earth, and do little dances. But
there is a problem for this....
Aberration is 90 degrees out of phase with parallactic ellipses.
....
So we would need all stars to execute two different and independent little
dances, one of constant size in the sky, and a separate ellipse with the
same shape as the aberration ellipse but smaller and 90 degrees out of
phase.
28/03/2011
>> So we would need all stars to execute two different and independent
>> little dances, one of constant size in the sky, and a separate
>> ellipse with the same shape as the aberration ellipse but smaller
>> and 90 degrees out of phase.
>
> Sure. Is that a problem?
Not if your intellect is perverted to the extent that Tony's is (or to the
extent that he pretends that it is). Remember, a distant galaxy has to
execute a huge dance to imitate aberration because it is observed to undergo
the same aberration as nearby foreground stars. Therefore it has to be
executing a dance locally at many times the speed of light.
29/03/2011 (probably not the one Chris was thinking about)
> Do you mean that Tycho proposed circular orbits? Let's allow for a
> modified Tychonian system in which orbits are elliptical. Does that
> fix it?
This is where you get into the realm of magic. Orbits [in a two-body
system] are elliptical, as discovered by Kepler and proved from first
principles by Newton, because gravity is an inverse square conservative
force. (Let's ignore the GR modifications for now, as they don't change the
basic picture). In the Tychonic system, you need some sort of additional
magic force to hold the Earth stationary while everything else is centred on
the much more massive Sun, and revolves around it. Either magic is
responsible, or gravity is universal. Or you can deny that the Sun is
actually much more massive than the Earth, which simply requires much more
magic.
29/03/2011
> Are there any space telescopes with orbits such that the aberration
> would be different than for a telescope on earth?
All the telescopes in orbit around other planets are not really designed to
check this. You have to remember also that aberration is measured with
positional equipment such as transit instruments, not by direct imaging of a
field of view.
However, their aberration of starlight would be different, yes.
[Note added later: interplanetary space probes rely on celestial navigation
for determining their precise orientation. This has to take into account
aberration of starlight in the telescope aboard the craft, which will be
different from aberration on Earth. Astronomers and rocket scientists use
this in their calculations for trajectory and positioning, e.g., for Galileo
and Cassini flyby missions to the satellites of giant planets, without
worrying about whether the solar system is geocentric of heliocentric,
because it would be perverse not to do so.]
29/03/2011
> 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.
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.
30/03/2011 (skipping one minor point made)
> Not relevant. Tony's system doesn't involve any differences in mass of
> objects from the standard system.
In that case, Tony would (among many other impossible requirements) need to
invoke a massive, mysterious, magical failure of simple Newtonian mechanics
such that a larger, far more massive object (the Sun) would orbit around a
small stationary object (Earth). Newtonian gravity works on Earth (hence
our proud ability to orbit space stations, wage nuclear ICBM wars, throw
rocks at each other, etc), and we observe it in action everywhere else,
including hundreds of other solar systems in which the planets orbit around
the stars (or barycentres close to or within the stars), so for a geocentric
model to be true, you would require a single total failure of the basic
physical concept of gravity (leaving aside GR modifications).
Tony Pagano's claimed geocentric viewpoint has no basis in facts.
If Tycho were alive today and could examine the evidence, he would reject
his own proposed model, and he would challenge Tony to a duel with swords.
[A lot of this was discussions with John Harshman, trying to be Devil's
Advocate (for Tony, who ran away).]
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mitchell Coffey
Actually, it's both A & B, if you think of it.
Mitchell