Jump to content
molbol2000

Is there the proof of heliocentrism?

Recommended Posts

I know it sounds like freaky, but I haven't found such evidence.
I know that Galileo proved the possibility that when the earth moves as an inertial system, this movement may be imperceptible, but the possibility is not proof that this is the case. Similarly, with the reasoning of Copernicus and so on.

Meanwhile, the ancient concepts of spheres are very close to what is actually observed, for example, distant stars are almost motionless, and so on.

And besides, if we (purely hypothetically) admit the existence of the ether, then the immobility of the earth explains the absence of the etheric wind

By the way, were there any attempts to detect the etheric wind on other planets and satellites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

I know it sounds like freaky, but I haven't found such evidence.

What kind of sources have you looked at?
Earth is not the center of the solar system. And the sun is not the center of the solar system; the orbits are not circular but elliptical. And the planets masses can't be neglected so the sun would describe a tiny wobble as seen by a remote observer. 

The solar system is obviously not in the center of the milky way. And universe has no center.

 

39 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

By the way, were there any attempts to detect the etheric wind on other planets and satellites?

 

Since the idea* has been debunked consistently on earth why waste time and money on doing it again on another planet? As a comparison I would not vote for someone that wants tax money for searching for phlogiston on the moon or mars. (Searching for ether* winds in a planet atmosphere may okay though)

 

 

(I guess aether is the word you mean. )

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on special relativity, there is no center of motion.  The best one can .do is define the center of the solar system as the center of mass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science doesn’t have proof, it has evidence. You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

So, there is no evidence of heliocentrism? It's just a model?

6 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Since the idea* has been debunked consistently on earth why waste time and money on doing it again on another planet?

I have said. If it turns out that the aetheric wind is there on other planets, then the earth is the motionless center of the universe.

Edited by molbol2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Swansont has explained, heliocentrism has a mechanism for its properties, gravity; other models do not, and cannot.
And, if you don't realize gravity is one of the most tested theories ( and has been used to land people on the moon ), you've been living under a rock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the solar system is not a model; it is the real deal, and the planets besides Earth can be observed directly and be seen to orbit the Sun - or more correctly their centre of combined mass, the barycentre, which is inside the Sun but off centre.  Earth's orbit can be determined by it's relative motions compared to the stars around us and has been confirmed to orbit the combined Earth-Sun barycentre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, at the time of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

So, there is no evidence of heliocentrism? It's just a model?

That's the opposite of what I said. There's lots of evidence, and all science is based on models, so "just a model" is an odd description. 

Quote

I have said. If it turns out that the aetheric wind is there on other planets, then the earth is the motionless center of the universe.

The aetheric wind is a model, too, BTW. One that's contradicted by the evidence.

7 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

Oh, the solar system is not a model; it is the real deal, and the planets besides Earth can be observed directly and be seen to orbit the Sun - or more correctly their centre of combined mass, the barycentre, which is inside the Sun but off centre.  Earth's orbit can be determined by it's relative motions compared to the stars around us and has been confirmed to orbit the combined Earth-Sun barycentre.

No, I disagree. The planets could be "orbiting" in epicycles. The models are perfectly consistent with each other mathematically — you can transform one into the other with Fourier analysis — but we prefer the one that has a testable mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

in my personal opinion, the evidence of aether is exists

Satellites sent to remote areas in solar system (and beyond) are not affected by any aether. Satellites maintain constant velocity*

 

*) Not including possible solar wind interaction and gravitational slingshot manoeuvres etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, swansont said:

You don't get to decide what science is, and a "generalization of experience" is not what science is. 

Generalization of experience is the basis of real science.
This is easy to prove.
If a set of vocal statements is taken as the basis(axioms), then the scientific method is no different from the scholastic one. Since the scholastic method is not scientific, experience must be put in the foundation of science.

Proved

8 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Satellites sent to remote areas in solar system (and beyond) are not affected by any aether. Satellites maintain constant velocity*

This cannot be already even because they collide with small particles

9 hours ago, MigL said:

To be fair, at the time of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton, it was.

What has changed now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

molbol2000, If you want to support an aether wind, present evidence of it, preferably in a new thread.. Nobody is required to show it doesn't exist - the burden of proof is yours.

The question asked in the OP was "Is there the proof of heliocentrism?" and that has been addressed: proof is the wrong word; science uses evidence. There is indeed evidence of heliocentrism. 

Follow-ups in this thread should be about heliocentrism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Removed

Edited by Ghideon
x-post with swansont, OT aether comment removed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What?

collisions change movement. Space is not sterile, there is dust and particles

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

molbol2000, If you want to support an aether wind, present evidence of it, preferably in a new thread.. Nobody is required to show it doesn't exist - the burden of proof is yours.

The question asked in the OP was "Is there the proof of heliocentrism?" and that has been addressed: proof is the wrong word; science uses evidence. There is indeed evidence of heliocentrism. 

Follow-ups in this thread should be about heliocentrism.

This topic is related, I have already said exactly how.

I have already given the evidence, I believe that the wave nature of light proves a luminiferous medium (aether)

If you insist, we can not discuss it

10 hours ago, MigL said:

As Swansont has explained, heliocentrism has a mechanism for its properties, gravity; other models do not, and cannot.

How exactly is gravity with heliocentrism?

 

10 hours ago, MigL said:

And, if you don't realize gravity is one of the most tested theories ( and has been used to land people on the moon ), you've been living under a rock.

In general, gravity itself is an extremely dubious hypothesis, because it provides for action at a distance, which is generally rejected by science and has never been observed anywhere.

10 hours ago, MigL said:

 and has been used to land people on the moon

That is not prove of gravitation hypothesis,

Edited by molbol2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

How exactly is gravity with heliocentrism?

Gravity can be used to model and predict how the celestial bodies move in the solar system.

 

 

54 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

collisions change movement. Space is not sterile, there is dust and particles

Off topic. And already covered in my foot note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ghideon said:

Gravity can be used to model and predict how the celestial bodies move in the solar system.

if we assume geocentrism it won't work?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, molbol2000 said:

collisions change movement. Space is not sterile, there is dust and particles

This topic is related, I have already said exactly how.

!

Moderator Note

Heliocentrism is not related to the aether

I was not negotiating

 
1 hour ago, molbol2000 said:

I have already given the evidence, I believe that the wave nature of light proves a luminiferous medium (aether)

Heliocentrism is not dependent on the wave nature of light

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

This approach leads to fraud

!

Moderator Note

The default position on this site is that science and the scientific method is valid, and that has to underlie all scientific discussions.

If you have an argument with the basis of science, that can be discussed in Speculations, and only if you have an actual argument that is backed up with evidence. Not hand-waving.

 

edit: off-topic posts have been split

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123374-science-and-the-scientific-method-split-from-is-there-the-proof-of-heliocentrism/

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

By the way, were there any attempts to detect the etheric wind on other planets and satellites?

While not intentionally, a fix to a design problem provided one.

One of NASA's missions to a moon of an outer planet required communication between an orbiter and lander.  This used a protocol which involved a narrow frequency tolerance.  The problem arose  because the tolerance was made too tight and the transmission frequency of the lander was off just a bit.  The "fix" they came up with was to alter the orbiter's orbit so that at specific times, its velocity with respect to the Lander caused a Doppler shift which compensated for the drift.  The lander would dump its gathered data during these "window"s.

Now if there had been an "ether wind", the Moon's orbit around its planet, and the Planet's velocity would have had an effect on that Doppler shift.  In other words, Not only would they had to account for the relative velocity between lander and orbiter, but these other motions as well. And since these motions changed with time relative to the orbiter's orbit, NASA would have had to either keep adjusting the Orbiter's orbit or changing the "transmission window" to keep up.  They didn't.  The only thing they needed to concern themselves with was the relative velocity between orbiter and lander, which would not have worked if there had been an ether wind.

T

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds like a story from comics

9 minutes ago, Janus said:

One of NASA's missions

By the way, do you know that most of this filming was filmed in Hollywood, at the studio? True, there is debate about how much material was filmed there, 100% or less :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, molbol2000 said:

if we assume geocentrism it won't work?

If we assume you are discussing science then your question needs to be reformulated.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

If we assume you are discussing science then your question needs to be reformulated.

why can this be applied to a heliocentric model but not to a geocentric one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

why can this be applied to a heliocentric model but not to a geocentric one?

@Swansont already answered that: 

Quote

You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You can make a model where the earth is the center of the solar system, but you have to deal with epicycles. Heliocentrism has the features of (1) being much simpler, and (2) a separtely-confirmable physical explanation (gravity), which geocentrism lacks.

That is, geocentrism does not need gravity at all, right I get it? What is there instead? After all, how is it necessary to explain the fall of bodies and their retention in orbits?

Suppose we could explain the fall of bodies by the theses of Aristotle that the heavy materia  falls, and the light rises. We could explain the holding of bodies on by the presence of celestial spheres. Do I understand correctly?

And what exactly is gravity not suitable for such a model, what is the specific contradiction?

Edited by molbol2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

That is, geocentrism does not need gravity at all, right I get it?

Incorrect.

13 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

Suppose we could explain the fall of bodies by the theses of Aristotle that the heavy materia  falls, and the light rises. 

We could explain the holding of bodies on by the presence of celestial spheres. 

Please start a thread in speculations and propose a model and supporting evidence.

 

13 minutes ago, molbol2000 said:

And what exactly is gravity not suitable for such a model, what is the specific contradiction?

The question does not apply since you were incorrect in the first question in the post.

Edited by Ghideon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.