As you know, the season and temperatures present at the summer in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth are the same like the season and the temperature present at the winter in the Southern Hemisphere of Earth. This proves that there is a perfect symmetry between the position of Earth compared to the sun during the summer for the Northern Hemisphere and between the position of Earth compared to the sun during winter for the Southern Hemisphere. This means that the movement between the Earth and the sun can only be a perfect circle. Furthermore, since our telescopes can't detect this perfect circular trajectory and detects an ellipse instead, then the principle of the Heliocentric Solar System is wrong and it is the sun that is turning around Earth.
Also, above the earth's atmosphere, solar radiation has an intensity of approximately 1380 watts per square meter (W/m2) and this value is known as the Solar Constant. It is a constant as the name shows which proves the symmetry of the circular orbit of the sun around the Earth. Many scientists think by making calculations that the solar radiation changes with a rate of 6.5% from a season to another. However, if this change of solar radiation was correct then the summer of the southern Hemisphere would be 6.5% hotter than the summer of the northern hemisphere of Earth. However, we know in fact that the hottest areas on Earth are in the northern hemisphere since the hottest place on Earth is Furnace Creek in Death Valley, California (USA) in the northern hemisphere, where a temperature of 56.7°C (134°F) was recorded on 10 July 1913. In summer months, Death Valley in the northern hemisphere for example has an average daily high of 45°C (113°F).
After the discovery of tiny blackholes and the effective mass of the dark matter, we can consider that each planet rotating with a strange orbit around Earth rotates also around a mass of dark matter or of a tiny blackhole which explains what we call the epicycles.
Come on, isn't it better than believing in unexplained elliptic rotations of orbits that can repeat themselves infinitely???
Can you disprove the geocentric model for Earth by taking in consideration the presence of dark matter in our universe???
Can you prove 100% that the Solar System is not Geocentric and that the heliocentrism that appeared at the 17th century is correct?
>We can consider that each planet rotating around Earth rotates also >around a mass of dark matter or of a tiny blackhole which explains that epicycle.
Such a model cannot explain interplanetary trajectories which are demonstrably conic sections with the Sun at one focus - as shown by any comet or appropriate spacecraft.
James Garry
Thanks for your response. However, don't you think that the conic sections trajectories observed are caused by our consideration that the sun is the center of the "solar system"?
I mean that the conic section trajectories are just a result that would be different by considering that the Earth is the center of the "Solar system". What do you think ?
don't you think that the conic sections trajectories observed are caused by our consideration that the sun is the center of the "solar system"?
It's not a 'consideration'.
The Sun is close, very close to, the barycentre of the solar system.
No other frame of reference allows the vis-viva equation to be satisfied with a minimum of parameters (position vector and velocity).
You're welcome to plot the paths of the Voyager or Pioneer craft in any frame other than heliocentric, but only in that frame will there be a minimum set of dimensions to its phase space.
Dear Akram Louiz To my understanding, nature is the greatest phenomenon that it is following its nature, not our modeling.
Article Quantum Solar System
Dear James Garry and Javad Fardaei ,
As you know, the elliptic orbits of planets are deduced from their equations of movement.
However, can you give an example of a solid orbiting continuously with an elliptic trajectory around a source of electrognetism for example? I mean that all the lasting orbits that we experiment on Earth are pefectly circular unless we have a double or triple sources of electromagnetism.
What do you think ?
Dear James Garry and Javad Fardaei ,
As you know, the season and temperatures present at the summer in the Northern Hemisphere of Earth are the same like the season and the temperature present at the winter in the Southern Hemisphere of Earth. This proves that there is a perfect symmetry between the position of Earth compared to the sun during the summer for the Northern Hemisphere and between the position of Earth compared to the sun during winter for the Southern Hemisphere. This means that the movement between the Earth and the sun can only be a perfect circle. Furthermore, since our telescopes can't detect this perfect circular trajectory and detects an ellipse instead, then the principle of the Heliocentric Solar System is wrong and it is the sun that is turning around Earth.
Can you prove 100% that the Solar System is not Geocentric and that the heliocentrism that appeared at the 17th century is correct?
Akram,
>This proves that there is a perfect symmetry between the position...
No, it proves no such thing.
If your notion that the Earth's orbit was circular were true (and it is not) then the amount of insolation (W/m2) that a plane receives perpendicular to the Sun's rays would be constant.
It is measured to vary in exactly the manner that one would expect from an elliptical orbit: the variation being some 6% or so IIRC.
I am puzzled as to how you do not know this fact.
>This means that the movement between the Earth and the sun can only be a perfect circle.
No, the motion is elliptical.
And we know that the Earth is in motion as the aberration of starlight (and simple parallax) show an annual variation. This has been known for centuries.
I will no longer take part in this discussion as I think, that you know the modern paradigm and its supporting evidence, but are attempting to prove some obscure point.
I treat ResearchGate as a place for people to ask honest questions. I do not think that you are engaging in such a manner.
Dear Mr James Garry ,
Above the earth's atmosphere, solar radiation has an intensity of approximately 1380 watts per square meter (W/m2). This value is known as the Solar Constant. It is a constant as the name shows.
The major factors which influence the amount of insolation received are:
- Rotation of the earth on its axis.
- The angle of incidence of the sun's rays.
- Duration of the day.
- Transparency of the atmosphere.
Mr James Garry don't leave the discussion because you will notice that it is interesting since a large amount of people still believe in Geocentrism even if they have reached famous universities for studies.
Akram,
I break my vow this once.
"The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m2 in early January to 1.321 kW/m2 in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant
I will say no more and await your correction to the wikipedia page.
The Earth is not always 1AU from the Sun.
But I now am certain that you know this and are playing some obscure joke.
Good bye.
Dear Mr James Garry , thank you for your response. As you know, earth's spin axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane. This is what causes the seasons and what causes the little change of the solar irradiance. If we believe in the elliptic orbit of the Earth around the sun, Earth is about 4,800,000 km (3,000,000 miles) farther from the Sun in July than in January and I believe that if there was a change of irradiance because of that distance then it will be a significant bigger change of irradiance, not only 6.9%. You only have to calculate the fraction of the distances in January and July 91,403,034 miles/94,506,364 miles which is different than 6.9%.
I am serious Mr Garry. It is not a joke.
Dear Akram Louiz,
Correction to your call for details:
Remember inverse-square law of radiation? I=P/r^2; so I1/I2=(r2/r1)^2 .91,403,034 divided by 94,506,364 is .967167274... ( I calculated considering all the digits) whose square is 0.935403766.., about 6.5% (6.4596233...%) less than 1. More precisely, inverting 0.935403766... gives 1.069057059...i.e. 6.9057059...% more than 1. This means, compared to insolation recieved at 94.5 million or so miles, insolation recieved at 91.4 millions or so miles is 6.9% larger. Radius of sun is much below 100 million miles, so sun can be treated as point particle for purpose of this calculation.
what was once considered constant may be no longer so in future, but name might stay. And solar constant is already defined at a certain (avg. sun-to-earth) distance from sun, whethen the earth's distance to sun always remain constant or not.
Do you have conclusive research showing arctic and antarctic summers are equally hot or winters equally cold even at same altitute and latitude, statistically significantly speaking?
Dumping Newtonean Mechanics for scale of solar system and replacing with protoscientific notions cause significant loss of predictive power of motion of solar system. Bringing in Dark matter (even if it exists at heart of solar system mechanics) must not be ad-hoc and of significant low explanatory and predictive power compared to newtonean mechanics, It must enhance predictive power compared to current models, and the new model must reduce to current model and correctly predict all predictions by current model under certain circumstances.
'Path of electrons', quantum mechanically speaking, is usually not circular, as shapes of electronic orbitals show obtained from solutions of schrodinger equation. if you object to the fact that these are not physical paths but rather probaility amplitude surfaces, then I tell you, no amount of mm-sized stable orbit between countercharges, be in circular or elliptical, can be possible due to corona discharge between the charges, and the gigantic number of electrons needed to pile up on those counter-rotating charged simply would decay to ambient environ. and there is accelarating radiation energy loss and orbital collapse and countercharge collision followed by charge neutralization (or annihiliation) is evident. so, this orbits are not stably possible even in LHC like stuff. If you are proficient enough, you can solve the Newton's (or Colulmbs) inverse-square law in radial coordiantes and how elliptical orbits naturally arise from that solution. If you are worried about fixed mass at center, correct your calculation with 'reduced mass' approach afterwords. Of course, the notion of Barycenter of Solar system being extremely close to center of sun, and no-fictitious force inertial frame of reference calculation from thar FOR is best-suited for mathematical application
Finally, Can you give me a comprehensive research about university graduates from different discipline and culture believing in geocentrism? And does their mispaced faith increse predictive power or applicability for (say GPS satellite or space-station Launching, or Comet Path or Asteroid hitting probability calculation on Earth) Geocentrism? Do you want to study their dynamics and nuances their faith in geocentrism? Or are you convinced by the claim of geocentrism? Ask yourself before approaching.
Addition: To ask reasons for their belief, you need frame the question not in terms of validity of Heliocentric model, but in terms of reasons for people believing into Geocentric model from social/cultural/personal psychological dynamics. It becomes question of sociology and psychology, not physics and astronomy per se. I am no social scientist, so I cannot answer such perspective.
But if you are believing in geocentric model yourself despite of models with much better predictive power and mathematical harmonization scope with other testable (and predicted to be correct) laws, I cannot make up an argument with you, for this needs many psychological aspects and nuances of your life to be considered, and also to be endowed with both compassion and rhetorical skills that I am lacking. Thanks for pointing out the survey, although you didn't point out how much of them passed university and how much from science disciplines. not all US people go to university, technical colleges are enough for them. Overall, who is going to believe a theory unless he/she uses it for tangible purpose or societal/learning environ compells him/her to accept it as norm?
Dear Mr Sumit Bhowmick , thanks for your response.
Can you give me the full correct calculations that give a rate of change of irradiance equivalent to 6.5% by using the change of distance between the Earth and the Sun ???
Before discussing electrons orbits or the cosmic orbits, you should know the problems of changing reference frames in Newtonian Mechanics. For that, I advise you to read my thesis about newtonian mechanics rotations and about differential operators. The thesis is available on my Researchgate profile.
Furthemore, Morris Berman quotes a 2006 survey that show currently some 20% of the U.S. population believe that the Sun goes around the Earth (geocentricism) rather than the Earth goes around the Sun (heliocentricism), while a further 9% claimed not to know. This fact happens even if most americans are cultivated people.
bBWY
Dear Mr Sumit Bhowmick , thank you for exposing the calculations. However, is the calculated rate of 6.5% really experimentally verified? Actually, I think that the summer in the southern Hemisphere of Earth should also be 6.5% hotter than the summer in the northern hemisphere of Earth. However, you know that the hotter places on Earth are in the northern hemisphere and they rarely reach 60 degrees Celsius.
For the comparison of temperatures in the two hemispheres, you should only use Google and compare the climate of Australia with Russia or compare Morocco with South Africa.
I will wait for your response.
Well, Mr. Akram Louiz , It is not just insolation, but also elevation, forest cover, albedo, ocean and air current pattern and Land-to-water ratio that matters. I am no climatologist, but averaging out temperature over all surface areas and filtering out altitude and albedo effects would require sophistication well beyond scope. Since % of Land is higher in Northern Hemisphere to Southern Hemisphere, temperatures at northern hemisphere are a bit more extreme since land with lower specific heat than water both heats up and cools down faster than water. But due to Land and Higher elevation, Antarctic regions are Cooler than arctic, when winters of both are considered.
And year-round average insolation for even same height and same-magnitude-opposite-signed lattitude places would not have same ratio. One needs to evaluate a complicated integral, perhaps 1/r^2 over a space curve, a 3-dimensional version of epicycle, that is note something I can model in a single sitting. This is case for a circle and a much larger ellipse, both not belonging to same plane, and center of circle mantaining a fixed angular relation with every point on perimeter of ellipse as the circle's ncenter is swept around the ellipse. Distance between a particular point on circle and center of the ellipse is r
So, there can be some correlation between max-min insolation and heat at northern and southern hemisphere, but so many more factors add up to the temparture difference of hemispheres that it is not quite possible to deduce average insolation on hemispheres from such averaged-over-hemisphere temperature alone.
Perhaps you need consulting to a mathematical modeller- Climatologist.
With Best Wishes,
Sumit Bhowmick.
Dear Mr. Sumit Bhowmick , the elevation doesn't matter too much for the temperature because Death Valley's Badwater Basin is the point of lowest elevation in North America, at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level.
Also, the hottest points in South Africa and Australia do not have any significant elevations.
What do you think ?
Dear Mr. Akram Louiz
Higher elevation usually provide lower temperature at same latitude and similar environ (similar level of land/sea surrrounding, similar air and/or coean current) . Adiabatic compression of downcoming air is quite much responsible for open-air-hot places below sea level. You may consider the Snow-cap of Kilimanjaro or year-round 'Spring-like' Environ at Quito, Equador- both on equatorial line or sufficient close to it as some examples from opposite site. Hight rises and Tempeature falls, this trend continues from ground level to above troposphere. Atomospheric Temperature vs Height curves might provide a sense of trend in specific regions of atmosphere.
Still, I do not get how this topic is linked to Heliocentrism/Geocentrism and Its public perception (and psychology). Are we digressing too much?
Dear Mr Sumit Bhowmick , thank you for your explanation. I am discussing the elevation because you said that it is a factor concerning the variation of temperatures between the two hemispheres. However, the hottest recorded temperatures are in the northern hemisphere even if your calculations confirm that the insolation radiations are 6.5% higher in the summer of the southern Hemisphere compared to the summer of the northern hemisphere.
I believe that verifying the Geocentric model again will make us progress. It is only a matter of theories. Wo knows who's right? Maybe we can make new discoveries with the tools and the technologies of nowadays by using the Geocentric model.
Well, As for newtonean mechanics applied on Planetray scale, Geocentric frame of reference is a valid but Non-inertial Reference frame. Heliocentric paradigm tidies up things a bit in terms of (almost) regular geometric orbits, and the convention of measuring things from an inertial frame of reference (almost). But If you think newtonean model is inaccurate representation for even non-relativistic non-microscopic, I would indeed run out of little rhetoric repository I have left.
And as for the geocentric-inspired frame of references, we draw star charts and trace ecliptic of sun , constellation etc. from a non-rotating, almost geocentric "celestial sphere' model. So where it simplifies graphing, it is indeed used.
I mentioned earlier that, we are venturing beyond physics and astronomy to philosphy and psychology of science and education, for "Heliocentrism" as implied commonly is much closer to scientific understanding than "geocentrism" implied commonly, although I concede here that , the 'common sense is not so common' adage makes it difficult for a non-social scientist to fomulate a concre aspect of concensust built within a community . What are working hypothesis you have for "Geocentric model" in your own sense that are scientifically verifiable and/or falsifiable? (BTW, Geocentricity do not require earth-sun distance to be fixed, anyways, unless center of circle is concerned, which is a special degenerate case for focus of a conic).
Mr, Akram Louiz I encourage you to reframe your question and prerspective, and wish to correspond with you not for much longer, for I cannot resist the ad-hominem urge to tag you implicitly ' idiotic pseudoscientist' much longer (perhaps alread done by many to you, sorry for that )- although I know this obscures the human face behind science and philosophical as well as societal aspect of a knowledge base that claims itself to be 'value neutral' .
With Best wishes and hopes,
Sumit Bhowmick
Mr Sumit Bhowmick , Actually, pseudo-science is what you make students believe in. Pseudo-science is what you failed to prove to me. The occident can't oblige us to venerate the sun with the heliocentrism or to venerate the light with Einstein's theories of relativity.
Wake up Mr Sumit Bhowmick because we know all your bad scientific intentions. Only the truth can win and persist in our world !!!
Regards,
Akram Louiz
Oh dear! Calm down, Mr Akram Louiz , Apologies for the misunderstandings! I didn't expect you to be quite enraged just mentioning the possibilities of ad-hominem comments towards you. Nevertheless, Ad-hominem comments shall bring more ad-hominems, that is not conducive to a healthy dialogue. I am not sure whether you have expressed at the heat of moment, but blanket-declaring a host of facts explored in scientific discussion to be 'pseudoscience' indeed denigrates the merit of dialogue. Please consider what you have meant by "you"- my whole persona, whole of the discussion I continued with you, or just parts of it?
Trust me- I have some very bad experiences with myself being name-called, and I meant no denigration to you other than my mental comprehension pushing myself to limits.
I emphasize again, we are bordering into history, philosophy and psychology of science, education, and even our own very minds in cases. In previous question, I asked you to think for verifiable/falsifiable propositions regarding phenomena explanable by 'geocentrism' and 'helocentrism' as you define it, and we (meaning the wider science community) may discuss implication of these propositions and testing thereof.
Is there anything morally wrong with using mathematical formula with greater mathematical simplicity and high predictive power? I do not find any, since there is no 'unemployment of human by machine' or 'spritiual crisis' is involved. In your opinion, where you draw the line between using mathematical formulation with some preferred notations for sake of simplicity as well as greater predictive power, and 'venerating' the mathematical objects or mathematical constructs around that object supposedly glorifying that object? Please think about It.
Don't take me wrong- born and living in South Asia, I am culturally oriental enough. From history of science but more so with philosophy and social sciences, some thematic aspects that are peculiarly product of the western mind and society have certainly been imposed upon rest of the world as "natural and absolute", whose effects are we are feeling to this day (other than bringing down pre-colonial societal, cultural etc, fabrics; and providing us with industrial technologies), but certainly I am not qualified enough to talk about this, other than merely expressing my declaration of conviction and anecdotal experience. To face cultural Hegemony of the Occident on Orient, I indeed agree with your spirit (but likewise, I do mean no denigration to the scientist coming from wstern word)
What I can tell is, without imposing 'deity-level' veneration to sun or absoluteness of (vacuum group) velocity of light, the mathematical formulations of Newtonean celestial mechanics on solar-system level or Theory of relativity on above-microscopic non-QFT level may be followed by me, I find no dissonance. 'Conflict Thesis' of Faith and Reason may come up with many issues including Geological age and Biological evolution, but certainly not Newtonean mechanics or Einstein's theory of relativity (unless The former implies a clockwork universe without metaphysical-supernatural scope or physical centralness universally correspond with 'importance' which is not the case always- remember, Dante's Nethermost Pit of Hell was center of the Earth, and by geocentric premises, center of universe as presumed by many in his time; and the latter implying loss of a Special Frame of Reference Attached to Earth means loss of speciality of Earth in all respect)
But the discussion shall be too tiring and cumbersome for me beyond my domain, and also would be not worthy of public conversation as our worldviews deeply held to our personal selves might come out and hamper a discussion aimed for science community. I wish someone more clear-headed and someone with more reasoning power as well as patience and compassion to continue this discussion, as I unfollow this question. I wish you keep pondering and exploring on your thoughts.
With Best Wishes, and Goodbye!
Sumit Bhowmick
"Abyssal predators use luminous bait to attract their prey. Hence, the devil can also use a luminous bait like the theory of Einstein to grab you and devour you. Always remember that light is not a God and that the sun is also not a God."
Akram Louiz
- Badges
- Science topic