Galileo Sun-Centered System

[polonophobia]

It is a Copernican Sun-Centered System as Copernicus was the first one to mathematically prove the Earth is revolving around the sun.

[greyman000]

@polonophobia The Copernican heliocentric system was by most viewed as a mathematical model only. It was used because it had greater predictability power over the motions of the planets then the geocentric system. It was not considered proof, nor having any bearing on reality. What Copernicus himself, as a catholic monk, believed is unknown, though it is unlikely that he had anything to do with the foreword that was put into his book that stated that it was only a mathematical model.

[sabreface10]

galileo was a illuminati.

[Itachilegendofleaf]

God this was funny in the begining!!!!

[Ronaldoo91]

then why does the bible state that the sun moves around the earth and not the other way around

[TheToxicRadio]

@Ronaldoo91 that's because the bible was written by ignorant people, ignorant meaning not knowing.

[sabreface10]

@TheToxicRadio incorrect the bible is full of meaningful metaphors. if you care to read it.

[TheToxicRadio]

@sabreface10 really? if i cared to read it? haha... oh you....

[pitalovesmusic]

@TheToxicRadio Ignorant is what YOU are.

[TheToxicRadio]

@pitalovesmusic Oh yea, sure, that's a valid statement. You Lose.

[pitalovesmusic]

@TheToxicRadio Wow, keep living your ignorant life and don't even bother replying back, you are no longer worth my time. Adios amigo!

[TheToxicRadio]

@pitalovesmusic This is what happens when your mom let's you use the computer, what are you 9? do you even know what this video was about? You don't. Keep suckin at life my friend, you're doing a good job ;-p

[pitalovesmusic]

@TheToxicRadio Last reply promise, no I am 22! Man you have so much hate...sad, take it easy, go to church, it will soften you up a little. =)

[TheToxicRadio]

@pitalovesmusic lol, why? didn't you see how galileo wound up? in jail, BECAUSE of the church, soften me up? yeah, that's what we need in this world, more wussies lol, there's no hate, you got offended by me saying the people whom wrote the bible were ignorant, that's because they were, they didn't know what the hell they were talking about when they looked up at the sky, Geocentric system was wrong through and through, but the church didn't want to accept that because it contradicted the bible

[iAMr3VOLution1]

the FACT is that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of heliocentricity. If u want to believe that garbage they taught us in school, fine, go ahead, but ill take the view of nearly ALLLLL ancient civilizations sayin that stars, sun and planets revolve around Earth. Seeing that modern man n mainstream science has NO clue how they built the Massive monuments all over this Earth, the ancients were Clearly much more intelligent that us. Question EVERYTHING, esp. what they indoctrinated us w in school

[puncheex]

@iAMr3VOLution1: One evidence: red/blue shifts of stars vary annually, indicating we alternately approach and then retreat from them. If the Earth doesn't move with respect to them, then you explain it. Your assertion is false (in fact all of them, except that nearly all civs agree with "common sense") are false. Where is your evidence?

[SounzNice]

@puncheex "One evidence"

Do you have a link?

I think the earth moves too slow for there to be noticeable red/blue shifts. On the otherhand, wouldn't an annual star movement oscillation produce the same phenomenon? Not that I'm totally sold on geocentrism. Just saying.

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: No, it's not too slow. Right now scientists use the same effect to locate planets going around other stars by the effect on the star's periodic oscillation in red shift, which is several orders of magnitude smaller (note that the star and the planet both actually revolve around their common center of gravity, so both move, but the star's movement is much smaller) than the planet's. This effect is well within possibility; in fact was in Hershel's time.

[SounzNice]

@iAMr3VOLution1 Good points.

[SounzNice]

3:30 "If venus revolves around the sun, it wouldn't have phases like the moon."

Wrong. Venus indeed goes through phases. It would have phases in either model.

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: Yeah - the only diffference is that the full phase would have Venus opposite in the sky from the sun, which it never is; it could never be farther from Earth than the Sun, which it is observed being.

[SounzNice]

@puncheex A full phase venus doesn't have to appear in opposite sides of the sky as the Sun. In full phase, venus is on the opposite side of the sun as the earth.

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: Draw yourself a model. Earth in the middle, sun and venus. The full Venus happens when the sun is opposite Venus (just as it is for the moon). In the heliocentric model, a full Venus happens only behind the sun, not opposite it. The real problem is that Venus can never appear behind the sun in the geocentric model, but it does in the heliocentric.

[SounzNice]

@puncheex "a full Venus happens only behind the sun, not opposite it."

Yes, a full Venus happens behind the sun. That's what I've said. On the opposite side of the sun IS behind the sun. How can it be any other way?

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: Let's try this again. You're on a central Earth, observing Venus. It's in orbit around us. Where might you find it? The answer is that it might be anywhere on the ecliptic, the circle it (and all the rest) follows around the planet. Sometimes it will be close to the sun, as either a morning star or an evening star, sometimes it will be invisibly close to the sun, and sometimes it will be high in the sky at midnight, opposite the sun, just like the moon is, right? ...

[puncheex]

... Now, is that how we actually find it? It is sometimes teh morning star, sometmes the evening star, and in between it gets real close to the sun. But we have never, ever see it in the midnight sky. How does it always stay so close to the sun. The ancients said that it sometimes sped up, sometimes slowed down, but always stays close to the sun for some unknown reason. Kepler's laws deny this; the only thing affecting speed in orbit is the size of the orbit, so ...

[puncheex]

... Venus, being closer to us than the sun, should always move in orbit faster than the sun - none of this mama's girl stuff. But the ancients didn't know Kepler. The thing that sealed the doom was, if Venus was always close to the sun from our point of view, it must always show a crescent shape to us. Galileo saw, however, that it went from crescent to near full, just before it went too close to the sun to see. This couldn't be. It could never be full, or even nearly full, as seen from Earth.

[iAMr3VOLution1]

@puncheex WATCH!!! /watch?v=Low8QQTiVs8

and keep in mind this is a professor, one of the most well-read i might add. the major difference this professor is NOT controlled by big money and corporate interests

[puncheex]

@iAMr3VOLution1: Well, sir, I had to stop at the "lie, after lie, after lie". NASA may not be the most forthcoming entity, but I have personally done enough experimentation in space and space bound vehicles to know that they are not hoaxing the take from the missions I've worked with. People often think that NASA is in total control of all aspects of a space mission; in fact, it often acts as a subcontractor to the mission, providing the launch vehicles and integration testing services. ...

[puncheex]

... I've witnessed events on spacecraft where the NASA people are clueless about what is happening; they defer to the mission planners, major contractor's engineers and mission scientists. They may own the mission in the sense of property, but they aren't usually in charge, particularly of the science. The idea that they can filter the science to demonstrate heliocentricity in the face of assumptions (such as orbital mechanics computing) contrary is simply ludicrous. The speaker is a fraud.

[SounzNice]

@puncheex I was referring to the heliocentric model, but many geocentrists believe in a system that is identical to that model except that the earth is stationary. So nothing has changed except the earth doesn't move. Yes Venus is always seen in the sky "close" to the sun.

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: OK, the Brahe model. Yes, in the Brahe model all the visuals are exactly as they are in Kepler's model (Brahe was Kepler's employer, and trying mightily to save some vestige of Ptolemy from modernism). The only problem is annual parallax, which is explained away as the rest of the universe moving annually rather than the Earth. If that is your model, then yes, then Galileo's observations don't matter; but for Galileo, Brahe was in the future; they did demolish the Ptolomian system.

[SounzNice]

@puncheex Any earth-star paralax is too thin to be considered reliable. Stars are simply too far away according to "official" current estimates. And again, as for red shift, the earth moves too slow for detection of a light dopler effect IMHO. But again, I'm not trying to defend the Brahe model as I have major issues with it. What are your views that Kepler poisoned Brahe?

[puncheex]

@SounzNice: You don't have to measure the parallax; only note that it varies with a one year period; that can be done statistically over a number of years to give a measure ofd assurance. As for Kepler vs Brahe, I have no opinion; I'm too far removed for that to have any resonance for me; it's like speculating on the disease that George V had during the revolution - who cares if he was high on Mercury or not?

[SounzNice]

@puncheex "it varies"

What varies? What's the "it"? If you mean the parallax width distance, again "it" cannot be measured. It is simply too thin because the star distance used in the equation are "at least allegedly are" too far away.

"Who cares" ? You mean to tell me who cares if Kepler knocked off Brahe? Maybe the truth does - specifically any scientific tests Brahe may have wanted to share or proofs! In that case, I definitely would care for one. You should too. C'mon!

[SounzNice]

BTW parallax has nothing to do with the ability to detect differences in red and blue shift. Only the speed of the earth does.

[datzfast]

someday the truth will be known and booth the old and the current theory will both seem just so bat shit crazy

[Danerd9]

church failed. who's perfect now?

[datzfast]

science is just as stupid, it places earth at the exact center of the universe 13.5 billion lightyears across in every direction.

thats religion if there ever was religion.

[puncheex]

@datzfast: No it doesn't. What shaman have you been getting your science from? We are in the middle of our own "visible universe", which is 13.7 bly across. Someone in Andromeda has their own similar, but offset visible universe. The whole universe seems to be much larger, but there is no way (except theoretically) to ever know how big it is.

[PwnagePC]

@Danerd9 Agreed. Atleast you can actually see and study the planets. Comparing that to religion's lunacy is just idiotic on many levels.

[tate386]

actually its capernicuses system

[puncheex]

@tate386Copernicus got the planets in the right order; Galileo proved it was right with his telescope. Kepler got the shape of the orbits right, and Newton showed why that are that shape. Einstein straightened out a few glitches in Newton, and now we understand it well enough to send probes on years-long voyages without them getting lost (usually).

[JaceMullen]

had to watch this for school.... interesting and makes a person more intelligent

[uturniaphobic]

Those must have been trying times..unlike today. lol

Something I've always wondered that involves a Galileo experiment with the falling objects and how they all fall at the same speed. Then why do orbiting planets (which are in fact falling) move at different orbital speeds? Is is possible that each orbiting planet has different time that is warped due to its proximity to the sun? just a thought. thanks for the vid!

[datzfast]

see, you just proved time and space are not warped.

[uturniaphobic]

actually I think that on Earth everything falls at the same rate and is different than the fall-rate on a planet like Venus where everything there falls at its same rate. Each planet is deeper in the gravity well as they get closer to the Sun so I'd imagine that things fall faster on the inner planets compared to outer planets. just a guess.

[puncheex]

@uturniaphobic: the speed of a planet depends only on it's distance from the sun. Kepler's third law states: The square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit. The semi-major axis is the radius of the orbit if you consider it to be a circle, which is a pretty good assumption for the planets except Pluto. They move at different speeds because they have different distances. Same for long and short pendulums.

[kenotube]

I don't see why Venus couldn't be a crescent even if it did travel around the earth instead of the sun. Their relative positions could still illuminate only a portion of the planet seen by earth. Why was this proof?

[SheffieldAS]

Yes Venus could travel around the Earth and show a crescent, as the Moon does every month. But the proof of the model is that even if that was true the Sun would still have to be at the centre of the Solar System. Then the proof that Venus goes around the Sun like the Earth comes from the apparent change is size of Venus, as the crescent is observed, and the length of time it takes to do this.

[kenotube]

Yes, thanks for your reply. In the video, they simply mentioned that the crescent was the proof. But, through other observations, like the apparent change in size would then make it obvious. I was wondering why they didn't mention that in the video.

[SheffieldAS]

Unfortunately TV shows like to dumb down their explanations. I am glad you asked the question as so many people think such things but don't ever ask. Often the people editing the shows cut things out and they loose their meaning. Anyhow Galileo was a great thinker especially for his time. Have a great International Year of Astronomy kenotube :)

[datzfast]

because if venus orbits the earth daily it has to go though all the phases of crescent in just one day or one orbit.but then you might argue that since the sun orbits the earth also that may not be true.

[SounzNice]

I meant geocentric model

[puncheex]

@datzfast: Who said anything about orbiting the Earth in a day?

[neothomist1275]

If infinite extension into space from one body, the earth, is a fallacy, then infinite extension from another body, the sun, also must be a fallacy. Galileo was a hermetic relativist (Rosicrucianism, kabbalism).

[alanaldasucks]

oh yeah? well, sounds like some good bullshit to me

[neothomist1275]

It's Bellarmine you clown.

[alanaldasucks]

who the fuck is that? some shit kicker?

[neothomist1275]

St. Robert Bellarmine

[alanaldasucks]

woopty shit

[puncheex]

@neothomist1275: What is this "infinite extension" of which you speak?

[iAMr3VOLution1]

@puncheex im guessin ur referrin to stellar aberration, or the notion that the Earth is in motion..? if so, this goes perfectly in line with Ptolemy and his model as well. Aside from the Bible which clearly suggests geocentrism, wwwFIXEDEARTHcom, google: exposing the copernican deception and moving earth deception, a former professor who now has a radio show, and Dr Neville Thomas Jones

[puncheex]

@iAMr3VOLution1If this is an answer to "what is infinite extension", I was asking neothiomist what he was referring to in his posting about six above.