Is Heliocentrism a Lie? Does Stellar Parallax Solve the Problem?

[Mudkipz]

I recently got into a debate in my blog over whether Heliocentrism is provable or not. My argument is that all scientific phenomena are accounted for in the Geocentric model, but no one seems to agree. The main point that was brought up was something I didn't really understand called Stellar Parallax or Stellar Aberration. I thought that could be explained just as well if the stars were moving, but others said that's not the case.

Could someone please explain why Stellar Parallax/Aberration can only be explained if the Earth is moving?

I'm pretty sure we can explain the world without assuming something silly like Heliocentrism, but I'll agree with Heliocentrism if I'm outvoted.

 

[Zynetic]

5 reasons Heliocentrism is real:

1- Stellar aberration.
2- Stellar parallax.
3- The Doppler Effect.
4- Retrograde motion of planets.
5- Phases of Venus.

The debate between geocentism and heliocentrism has a long history going back at least to 300BC. The reason for the long debate is because mathematics of the times were unable to completely explain either model.

Most European churches in 200BC were in favor of believing that God had placed Earth in the center of the Universe. In 150AD The Roman Catholic Church chose to adopt the geocentric model because Claudius Ptolemaeus offered the most mathematical support for the geocentric model and it did not conflict with Biblical stories. The Church then chose to condemn anyone who spoke or wrote about heliocentrism unless they spoke of it as a mathematical theory only. The unfortunate problem was that Ptolomy had only the use of Euclidean geometry as the source of his computations which led to many errors and false misconceptions which then lasted for the next 1500 years. And religious denial lasting through 2008AD.

With the advancement of observations and mathematical models, the arguement reached fanatical stages in the 1500s when the Roman Catholic Church felt that heliocentrism was a threat to the Church's power and many supporters of the heliocentric models were imprisoned, tortured, and killed by hanging or by being burned alive in public.

The advent of the telescope in 1609 magnified the problems of geocentrism. The Church decided that one could speak about heliocentrism only as a mathematical exercise and not as a true fact. Books about heliocentrism were not allowed unless the Church had a chance to make 'corrections' and edits before publication.

Johannes Kepler, after analysing Tycho Brahe's observations, constructed his three laws in 1609 and 1619, based on a heliocentric view where the planets moves in elliptical paths. Using these laws, he was the first astronomer to successfully predict a transit of Venus for the year 1631.

In 1687, Isaac Newton devised his law of universal gravitation, which introduced gravitation as the force that both kept the Earth and planets moving through the heavens and also kept the air from flying away, allowing scientists to quickly construct a plausible heliocentric model for the solar system.

In 1725 James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. This is apparent yearly change in positions of all stars in the sky due to Earth's own motion. Aberration arises due to adding up of the speed of light coming from the star and Earth's own speed. This requires complex mathematics.

The Catholic Church lifted the ban on heliocentism books in 1757 because the Church could no longer keep up with imprisoning, torturing, or killing the growing number of persons believing in heliocentrism. It wasn't until 1822 that heliocentrism books could be written in Rome.

Stellar parallax is too small to be detected with the human eye. This fact was the main glue that held the geocentric models together. In 1838 astronomer Friedrich Bessel successfully measured the parallax of star 61 Cygni disproving that parallax did not exist. This also proved that stars were a very great distance away and not held within a circular epicycle which sped around Earth once each day. Parallax made the need for multiple epicycles obsolete.

In the mid 1800s it was proven that our Sun was a star like the others in the sky.

Since 1988, over 300 exoplanets have been discovered orbiting other stars. Never has a star been detected orbiting a planet.

Geocentric models had multiple difficulties explaining orbits. As a last attempt, they had planets going around the Sun but the Sun still went around the Earth.

Wavelength of the light that we receive from objects moving relative to us becomes a little shorter (bluer) when we approach the source and becomes longer (redder) when we move away from the source. The Doppler Effect. When Earth moves toward a star, the star will appear slightly bluer (only high-tech instruments can measure this) while it will appear redder when Earth is on the other side of the orbit and moves in the opposite direction. This effect proves that Earth has a velocity relative to the stars, similar to aberration.

The Coriolis force proves that the Earth is spinning and moving through space.

Space travel of probes has confirmed beyond any possible doubt the order of the planets and the fact that they all revolve around the central Sun. The mission of space probes depends upon highly advanced mathematical computations to fly past or land upon planets and moons in our Solar System. The order of the Solar System with the Sun in the middle cannot be denied with todays technology.

Geocentric models cannot explain the phases of Venus. They cannot explain retrograde motion of Mars. The order of planets in the geocentric model: Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, fixed stars - does not match what is seen when probes are launched into our Solar System. In the geocentric model, we would need to pass the Moon then the Sun then Venus then Mercury to get to Mars. This is contrary to reality.

In 2008, there still remain deceptions from those who are either ignorant or afraid of truth. We can find this in groups who like to believe in a hollow Earth or a flat Earth. Unfortunately, it even exists in groups who cling to geocentrism no matter how much fact is presented against the model.

Sometimes, this happens when persons just are misinformed. Other times, it is intentional. The latter is the case today by those who insist on denial of observed truths. The Catholic Church and Fundamentalist religious fanatics who will resort to anything to keep political and social control over their followers.

Your question has not only astronomical science ramifications but religious ones as well. It is difficult to present an answer to the question when a fanatic will cry that it is a lie or the result of the devil's magic. Others have mental or psychopathic illnesses like Spiritual Paradigm Shift below which corrupt their sense of reality to a point of insanity. There is no way to reason with these types as they live in a world of their own.

I am never happy when I have to state that despite the Catholic Church's poor judgement of the past, they are unwilling to change their views of geocentrism despite any factual data proving the heliocentric model. Why? Because if the Church ever admitted that the geocentric model was wrong, it would also have to admit that it killed, tortured, and imprisoned innocent persons. They will not do this. Persons like Giordano Bruno are still considered heretics even to this day by the Church.

There are those who mistakenly believe that the Church has changed its views about geocentrism by offering an apology to the treatment of Galileo. This is not true. The apology was given behing closed doors in a private ceremony. It was never a public or official denouncement of geocentrism.

The truth is that the Church has NEVER made any decrees abrogating or reversing the belief in geocentrism.

In 2008, the official policy of the Catholic Church led by the Pope is that heliocentrism may be taught in Catholic churches and schools as a possible THEORY only - never as a fact.

--

In the geocentric model, fixed stars all spin around Earth in the same sphere. Thus in a Doppler effect of the geocentric model, all of the fixed stars in the Eastern half of the sky would appear blue shifted and all of the stars in the Western half of the sky would appear red shifted. This is contrary to actual observations. An individual star would be blue shifted the first half of the night and red shifted the second half of the night. This is not what is observed.

The heliocentric models go back in time to Indian Vedic texts in the 600s BC. Copernicus was not the inventor of the model in the early 1500s. We note his name because he was lucky enough to be employed as a canon in the Catholic Church by his uncle who was an ordained bishop and was thereby able to get away with more than an outsider with his heretical ideas. In his legendary work On The Revolutions Of The Heavenly Spheres - 1543, he outlines the proper order of the planets with the Sun in the middle of the system. He also recognizes Earth's rotation. His book gained popularity because the bishop responsible for banning the work fell ill and died before he could ban it. Also, Copernicus wisely notes in the introduction that the work is one of mathematical hypothesis which cleared him of heresy charges. Copernicus' model was not perfect. It retained perfect circles which remained in the epicycles of the aether. But it was finally a major breakthrough towards truth and reality.

 

[Mudkipz]

I can't respond to all of that at once, but one thing I'm going to respond to right here: you say that the geocentric model can't account for the order of the planets. The answer is simple: the planets aren't always in the same order because their orbits around the Earth aren't circular.

 

[Nicoleta01]

@Mudkipz- Neptune and Pluto lack circular orbits around the SUN. They do switch places, so IDK how Mars and Venus switches places if they revolve "around the Earth"

 

[Misty]

it would sure be cool if we could fly into space and have a look.

oh wait. we did. troll topic.