My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism
Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):
“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving
around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already
plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian
physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”
We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a
geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is
revolving around the sun.
As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian
calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the
Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen
to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is
revolving around the sun.
As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of
the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did
they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.
“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of
unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear
then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with
the model with the least amount of assumptions.”
Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not
a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid
as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically
saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames
are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.
Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the
geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how
can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model
that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an
observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a
model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model
MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by
such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity
is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.
MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:
"Stellar aberration
doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."
Then explain how we could get
stellar aberration that way.
"choosing to make
Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean
that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."
Then present a model in which
the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with
as few assumptions as possible.
"Occam’s razor is a
philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the
universe."
Irrelevant. It states that we should choose
the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why
would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same
facts just as well, if not better?
