Stellar Parallax and Isaac Newton
Allow me to use your own words to show how full of bullshit you are. In your answer to Question 132 that you’ve posted on your website, you attempt (incorrectly) to suggest that stellar parallax can be reconciled with a geocentric system:
“Stellar parallax was thought to provide evidence of heliocentrism since it was believed that the only way parallax could be observed from earth is if the earth were revolving around the sun, and thus make it possible to view two stars at six month intervals and see an angle of separation. We now know from modern science, however, that stellar parallax can also be observed from a geocentric system if the revolution of the stars is centered on the sun rather than the earth, and therefore stellar parallax does not prove heliocentrism.”
First, it’s hard to see how this is still a geocentric system, since you now have all the stars in the Universe orbiting the Sun; it’s sounding very heliocentric. Second, it’s unclear exactly how gravity would cause all the stars in the Universe to orbit the Sun, but somehow not cause the Earth to orbit the Sun, especially given what you stated in the previous paragraph:
“In reality, Newton did not teach that the smaller must go around the larger; rather, he taught that all celestial bodies will revolve around the center of mass. As such, even Newton agreed in his Principia that the earth could occupy the center of mass if all the other bodies in the universe were strategically placed around it so that all their gravitational masses balanced out at the center. In short, this is the scientific basis for geocentrism – the earth is the center of mass for the universe, and thus the universe will revolve around the earth.”
I’m glad you don’t have issue with Newton’s Law of Gravity, but you seem unsure about a key point: is it the Earth or the Sun that is the center of mass for the Universe? If the Earth is the center of mass of the Universe, then by your own definition everything in the Universe would have to revolve around the Earth, including the Stars, which would preclude the observation of stellar parallax. If the Sun is the center of mass of the Universe, you get to keep stellar parallax, but now everything in the Universe (including the Earth) is orbiting the Sun, destroying what you claim is the “scientific basis for geocentrism”.
Good luck fleecing the flock; I hear Hell has extremely competitive interest rates for (very) long-term CDs.
R. Sungenis: Mr. Tennies, first, if you ever want to contact me again for a response I will require that you not succumb to the temptation of using profanity or denigrating remarks. If you can’t resist the temptation of such vulgarity, then, of course, you will just be ignored and put on the spam list.
As for your comment that to have the stars revolve around the sun is more heliocentric than geocentric, I beg to differ. The only real requirement to be geocentric is that the Earth does not move either in translation or rotation.
A secondary aspect of this non-movement is that the Earth would serve as the center of the mass of all the celestial bodies, including the sun and stars, and there is simply no argument from modern science against such an arrangement. Properly positioned among all the other masses in the universe, the Earth could easily serve as its center of mass, regardless of the relative motions of the bodies outside of the center of mass. In fact, any deviations of the celestial bodies would merely produce a wobble in their revolutions, but would not change the center of mass. The wobble itself is important since it answers to the half-dozen cyclical patterns of movement we see in the revolutions of the celestial bodies.
So you are going to need to try a little harder if you intend on refuting geocentrism.by