Mars - Geocentricity explains Mars retrograde motion

[madoo87]

so stupid.... neither the sun or earth is the center.... its only relative. you can therefore explain this in gencentric or heliocentric models the both would be correct. Its 2011 now people. plz lets learn that both CAN BE right.

[VahnsGrl244]

@phaxad Uhh no, because it's 2011 you'd think that crackpots like this would have become extinct, but I see that is not the case. How sad... for humanity in general. We've been here for thousands of years yet some people still aren't convinced that science works. Instead of rambling off some bullshit geocentric theory, and calling it an explanation, how about they mathematically and experimentally prove that the Earth is at the center and why it is so. It's just not physically possible.

[TheLiberalSoup]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA­HAHAHA WOW!

YOU are an IDIOT!

[sownzgr8]

For geocentrists:

If the earth is motionless, without centrifugal forces, how come people standing on high mountains weigh less? Why does the earth experience daily meteor showers at 5AM?

[cupojava1]

This is one of the most ridiculous explanations for mars retrograde I've ever seen

[erictheactorlynch]

wow.. you guys must have missed second grade science class a lot.

[BereanBeacon1]

@erictheactorlynch Creationists are very interested in real science, not science fiction.

All evolutionists have is hot air on the mostly anonymous Internet. We have the real science backed up by the $10,000 Life Science Prize. You can evolve from a chicken and win the prize or make cowardly remarks on websites until you ultimately die and become a creationists after it's too late. My last remark to you is something that everyone understands: CLUCK, CLUCK

[erictheactorlynch]

@BereanBeacon1 ok, so this is what i dont understand about geocentricity. are you saying that the motion of the planets in both heliocentricity and geocentricity is the same the motion of what's moving around what is a matter of perception? (which, i'll give you. that is true). or are you saying that there is some force (whether it be gravitation or something else) that is actually pulling the other planets suns and stars around it.?

[erictheactorlynch]

@BereanBeacon1 also what does Heliocentricity have to do with evolution. two entirely different realms of science. One is Astronomy, the other Biology. and while we're on the topic, i assume that you dont believe in evolution either. does this mean you dont believe in Natural Selection?

[JerezJulio]

What is very scary is that this nutjob is an actual engineer.

[meincke3]

the size of the sun, the massive gravity of it precludes this as a possibility. No way would the object of greater gravity rotate around objects of lesser gravity.....also...wholly cow, the speed the sun would have to be travelling is rediculous. Sorry Charlie, this doesn't pass the plausibility, or sniff test.

[sownzgr8]

@meincke3 Do you know how to prove the mass of the sun.. or even the size of it .. or distance for yourself? Just asking. Not debating this.

[meincke3]

@sownzgr8 , no, I can only guess. Even Science is a faith. Unless I become an astrophysist, I just have to trust the words of people who actually are astrophysistis. They claim to know with certainty, and I have little or no reason to suspect they are incorrect.

[sownzgr8]

@meincke3 Thanks. Maybe someone else can. Allegedly all you need is a stick and trigonometry. I'm curious to know how, specifically the equation used.

[erictheactorlynch]

@meincke3 and you are wise for doing so. but understand, that science is not faith. in science there are theories & hypotheticals but science does not claim these to be fact until they are proven fact through experimentation and observation. and even the theories have to comply with the laws of physics, or they are thrown out. for example, scientists dont say there is DEFINITELY life on other planets, despite the immense probability, because we just don't know for sure until life is found.

[erictheactorlynch]

@erictheactorlynch so with that in mind, it's fine to put your faith in science, because science has faith in nothing. instead, science deals with facts, laws of nature, observational evidence, and theories and hypotheticals that must work within the laws of science, and must be proven experimentally before they can be considered fact.

[erictheactorlynch]

@meincke3 

[erictheactorlynch]

faith is to believe w/o proof which isnt what science is about. Science is about understanding the mechanisms of the way nature works. take hypothetical particles for example, like the graviton, or Boson-higgs. Science is looking for these particles, because they would validate theories that predict their existence. But until they're found, these theories and particles are not considered fact by science. such was the case with the neutrino until its discovery in the 1960's.

[patrickohooliganpl]

Totally bull! What decides which is center of planetary system is its mass center which is approximately close to the Sun. From classical mechanics we can determine the center of movement of the mechanically closed/conservative system (which our system is close to be, not counting some meteors & comets which are marginal for its mech. energy) as its mass center. The Occam's razor should cut off the movement of fixed stars, reducing it to Earth's movement homogeneous to the rest of the Universe.

[LutzDerLurch]

Oh boy, what a shitty attempt. Your Line of Sight has to be from Earth to Mars... not from Sun to mars like in this shabby attempt.

[Othrandor]

Every time this douche bag says a word containing S, my ears explode.

[umkvec]

well that's 6:20 of my life I will never get back...

[WilkoPhilip]

the reason for these results is becasue of an eliptical orbit not a circular 1 like you keep using it is an oval pathway. add that into the model then you will see it. Now what you need to do is stop saying evolutionists as evolution has nothing to do with the stars. stop saying it or you will end up getting bombarded with atheists. just giving you a heads up. stap saying evolutionists as you could be talking about any person including a reationist that accepts evolution.....you just shound dumb

[jnoort]

Obviously, if you switch from a heliocentric model to geocentric, with mars still rotation around the sun and the sun around the earth, you can still have the same obervations. The question is: what is moving relative to what? So how do you explain parallax we observe with stars that are quite distant? Are these stars all dancing around in circles to make it look like we are circling the sun, or is it the other way around?

[randallvance]

Honestly, I'm not sure which has more holes: Geocentric or Heliocentric theories. Until we the people, not the selected few possess technology to truly observe and prove either theory through unbiased empirical data, both seem equally credible. Whether you believe in big bang or Creation, your assuming one is true and not the other. They BOTH require a great deal of faith. Although for me, physical laws do not come about by chance to sustain life.

[JohnWoo]

Assuming Mars isn't orbiting the sun????? That is a BIG assumption.

Your geocentric demonstration of the retrograde of Mars is inconsistent with everything else.

[Samuelwhatshisface]

This video has several problems. The diagrams you use aren't consistent; the orbit diagram shows Mars rotating around the sun, the next slide says that 'assuming Mars is NOT rotating around the sun...'. Furthermore, if Mars was rotating around the earth, it would need to have a highly eccentric orbit to account for the differences in observed size, but if it were that eccentric, Mars would fall into the sun.

Sorry, but, you're plain up... Wrong.

[neoverse]

@Samuelwhatshisface

"next slide says that 'assuming Mars is NOT rotating around the sun.."

What a hack job. Let me add what you so willfully left out.

He said; "to simplify complex orbits that we will be dealing with, we will assume Mars.."

He is not saying Mars doesn't orbit the sun, he is simplifying, apparently not simple enough 4u.

"Furthermore, if Mars was rotating around the? earth"

LOL, he never said the Mars orbits the Earth. The rest of your comment is irrelevant.

[jeepien]

Nut job.

[VahnsGrl244]

...Really? Geocentric theory? Honestly? It's 2010 dude.

[Wwallace67]

Sorry about the multiple posts. Thought there was an error with javascript (the "error" in my browser sort of made me think that) and the comments weren't showing up.

[Boy75402]

OKay. just saw your explanation with the Orrery.

For your explanation to work, Earth cannot be rotating on its axis. The day/night variations would be caused by the sun moving around Earth. Various spacecraft leaving Earth have shown us quite clearly that Earth rotates, creating the day/night variations as seen from its surface.

Also, measuring ths speed at which Mercury and Venus orbit the sun tells us the star's mass. It is the most massive body in the solar system, the bodies orbit it.

[Boy75402]

Could you explain your geocentricism-based model of Mars' retrograde motion somewhat more clearly? Shifting reference frames doesn't help a lot when trying to explain an observation done from Earth's reference frame.

If you accept that the sun is a much more massive body than Earth, then heliocentricism is just a natural conclusion.

Has nothing to do with evolutionists vs. creationists.

[pontecanis]

Mathetes---kindly cite for me when and where Dawkins, Sagan, et al stated that biological evolution and cosmology are related. Being disingenuous does not help your argument; Bowden is an incompetent and his lousy science makes that clear all by itself. His remarks here and elsewhere leave no doubt whatsoever that any form of evolution is anathema to him. His delusions are anathema to me.

[pontecanis]

@Mathetes76~ I'm sorry, this was not my intention...I must confess that your point is well taken, however, and I shall pay attention to this in the future. Please accept my apologies.

[Mathetes76]

@pontecanis

Sorry for the delay in reply...

I do accept & thank you for your courtesy.

[pontecanis]

Geocentricity explains retrograde thinking...Copernicus knew this idea was wrong;Galilleo saw this is idea was wrong;Keppler proved this idea was wrong;Einstein proved it again.And furthermore, none of this has ANYTHING to do with evolution---only a monumenatlly ignorant fool could claim cosmology and speciation are related.

[random331]

Everything moves relative to other things, so it is God's perspective that matters.

[etownoil98]

interesting!!

[bailesie]

Is this nutcase actually suggesting Geocentrism is fact? "Evolutionists" don't deal with celestial objects and their physics.

Moron.

[Split539]

That was absolutely retarded. Wow. This guy has the internet. You would think he could just look up why mercury goes retrograde. Really goes retrograde, I mean.

[Wwallace67]

Evolutionists don't usually admit to being evolutionists.

Geocentricism is a scientific explanation, by the way, and was supported by most scientists of the time over heliocentricism.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67 Geocenterism is a religious idea, and supported by the Catholic Church which monopolised 'science'. Copernicus was excommunicated for his work,remember. The idea is nonsense, as is what all of Bowden's contentions are.

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis

What history books are you reading?  Copernicus was not excommunicated. Take a look at Nicolaus Copernicus at wikipedia, scroll down to the section on Heliocentrism to see how the Pope and Archbishop of Capua Nikolaus von Schönberg reacted to Copernicus' ideas.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67~ 'The hierarchy of the Church was not pleased, and Copernicus was excommunicated as a heretic." [This Hebrew Lord by John Shelby Spong.]His work was put in the Index of Forbidden Books in 1611 and not taken out until around 1835--to even read the book was grounds for excommunication until 1835. Perhaps it is more accurate to say Copernicus and his work were proscribed as it is hard to excommunicate someone who is dead,after all...

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis

? Another confused individual.

[Atalatl]

@Wwallace67 "In March 1616 the Roman Catholic Church's Congregation of the Index issued a decree suspending De revolutionibus until it could be "corrected," on the grounds that the Earth moves and the Sun does not was "false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture." The same decree also prohibited any work that defended the mobility of the Earth or the immobility of the Sun, or that attempted to reconcile these assertions with Scripture.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67~Say,who is the individual who is confused here...is this a confession? Copernicus clearly was proscribed--the Index of Forbidden Books is hardly a secret. Some say he was excommunicated, some say he wasn't...it is not terribly material, as it was his elucidation of the Heliocentric Theory that was important...Bowden's model is at variance with orbital observations,and is false.

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis

You need to read better history books. Copernicus was not excommunicated over heliocentricism, or anything else that I know about, and geocentricsm was the favored theory of science in Copernicus' day. Look up Tycho Brahe.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67 Having not mentioned Tycho, it is nonetheless noteworthy that his system was wrong; Copernicus' work was proscribed---reading it was grounds for excommunication.As previously stated, some say he was excommunicated, some say not--that geocenterism was the system du jour prior to the 17th century is irrelevent: it is still wrong, as is Bowden,as are you.

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis

He was not excommunicated even if some say he was. You need to find better sources of information. As for simply reading it being grounds for excommunication, I doubt that highly, since the book was just a model of the solar system--and it was wrong, too. Epicycles, uniform speeds, circular orbits. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67~ Decree XIV of the Holy Congregation of the Index, issued 5 March 1616, reads in part: "Whereas it has also come to the knowledge of this Congregation, that the Pythagorean doctrine-which is false and altogether opposed to Holy Scripture-of the motion of the earth, and the quiescence of the sun, which is also taught by Nicholas Copernicus in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium, and by Diego di Zuniga in (his book on) Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many

[pontecanis]

,. . . therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicholas Copernicus, De Revolutionibus orbium, and Diego di Zuniga, on Job, be suspended until they be corrected." Those prohibitions were finally dropped from the 1835 Index

Source:Owen Gingerich,Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, JASA 33 (March 1981): 58-60.

I'd basically describe that as a reaction

[pontecanis]

From the Inquisition's sentence of June 22, 1633, Galileo Galilei was convicted of grave suspicion of heresy for "following the position of Copernicus, which is contrary to the true sense and authority of Holy Scripture," and was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life.

Finocchiaro, Maurice A. (1989). The Galileo Affair: A Documentary History. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press pp. 287-91)

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis "Decree XIV of the Holy Congregation of the Index, issued 5 March 1616, reads in part"

You forgot to mention that Copernicus died in 1543.

Nice quote mine. LOL.

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis " Decree XIV of the Holy Congregation of the Index, issued 5 March 1616, reads in part: ..."

You fogot to mention that Copernicus died in 1543. But I am sure he was distraught about your quotemine.

[pontecanis]

@Wwallace67 I guess you forgot about the part that involved the proscription of Copernicus' work--possessing and/or reading books on the list or espousing beliefs in proscribed books and ideas was grounds for excommunication, which was also the grounds for the house arrest of Galileo, as quoted. Or do you contend that never happened too? A revisionist and denialist as well as stupid...

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis " Decree XIV of the Holy Congregation of the Index, issued 5 March 1616, reads in part: ..."

You fogot to mention that Copernicus died in 1543. But I am sure he was distraught about your quotemine.

[JohnWoo]

@Wwallace67 Why did Copernicus wait just before he died to release his publication on his theory? Are you saying the church didn't apply any pressure on him to not publish it?

[Wwallace67]

@pontecanis

You are lieing through your teeth. Copernicus was never excommunicated. And you don't know your science history either.  Geocentricism was advocated by Tycho Brahe. Go back to school.

[bailesie]

@Mathetes76

When he says "evolutionists" he is referring to those who accept the Theory of Evolution. That is to say biological adaptation to various environments.

This guy is equating cosmological evolution with biological evolution. They are NOT the same.

[bailesie]

@Mathetes76

I'm simply stating that when religious zealots say 'Evolutionist' they are almost always speaking of biological evolution. Would it not be necessary to clearly define of which one you speak? Cosmological Evolution is a separate entity to Evolution. He did not say "Cosmological Evolutionist", thus giving the impression that he is generalizing all those who accept biological evolution.

[TheLizardPeople]

@Mathetes76 A check of Bowden's web site shows he is an anti-evolution creatonist, and proud of it. He definitely means biological evolution as well as cosmological evolution. Run the geocenterism app at GeoAstro, and then explain how all the bright planets assume retrograde orbits in the model; only Mars has a retrograde orbital observation in reality. Bowden is wrong.

[bailesie]

@Mathetes76

I find that when creationists cannot argue in depth concerning biological evolution that they move the goalposts to include the beginnings of the universe - a field not included in Evolution. Does the formation of stars and solar systems come before animals? Of course. However, how does that deal directly with the changing of alleles and adaptations in living creatures? Evolution deals with life after it started, regardless of divine creation or not.

[rollinshultz]

That was very confusing, could you try again and explain it better?

[bluevaines]

I really enjoy your videos

God bless