"Parallax is also possible in a modified Tychonian system where the movement/rotation of the universe is hinged on the sun, which is hinged on the non-moving earth. Others who say that the rotation of the whole universe is hinged on the earth put parallax down to a form of aberration."
I just realized today that the parallax of the modified Tycho Brahe model actually does not seem to be consistent with the heliocentric. In the modified Tycho Brahe model, the sun would travel around the earth everyday and the stars would always follow the motion of the sun everyday. The reason why the parallax of the stars is inconsistent is because in the winter time the sun finds itself at the same location with respect to the earth, only lower (if it's at the same time of the day). I personally cannot rationalize this. If I am mistaken anywhere please help me out. Some Geocentrists believe parallax to be a form of aberation, I haven't studied this other position too much though, I have grown an interest for it after reading an article by James Hanson.
Sorry, my bad, I misunderstood something at first, now my understanding of Stellar parallax is complete and I understand that it does in fact work within the modified Tycho Brahe model. I want to expand this article to prove every single assertion. Because they are all true.
anti geocentric stance of the creationwiki
Why does the creationwiki take an antigeocentric stance?
If geocentricity is correct, the sun is going round the earth, with the other planets going round the sun. Furthermore, the whole universe is revolving round the earth once per day. Since parallax measurements have established stellar distances to multiple light years, it is evident that that implies that most bodies in the universe are travelling at many times the speed of light around the earth.
Now, if the bible plainly stated that this was the case, we would have to accept it and try to find reasons for the apparent conflict with the rest of what we know. However, that is not the case. It is not like the 6 days of creation, which are plainly stated to be evening and morning, nor is this idea stated in the historical account of creation. The relevant verse says "the earth is firmly established so that it cannot be moved" but this need mean no more than that the earth is fixed in its orbit around the sun. If it means (as geocentrism implies) that the earth is fixed and immovable, we have to ask, fixed in reference to what? Job says the earth is hung upon nothing. Geocentrists seem to want to give that "airy nothing a local habitation and a name".
To most of us, geocentrism seems a hangover from pagan Ptolemaic astronomy. Oelphick 03:18, 21 October 2006 (EDT)
Modern geocentric theories posit that the bodies in the universe are not actually going that fast, but that an ether in the universe is pulling them.
Why aren't there any references?
--RichardT 19:34, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Speed of light not constant?
There are so many problems with stating that the speed of light is not constant, why would we have to assume this for the modified Tycho-Brahe geocentric model?
Some New Ideas
I would like to point out some issues around the geocentrisnm/heliocentrism debate.
I think the discussion needs to be addressed from a scientific standpoint as well as a Scriptural, Patristic, Ecclesiastical perspective. I think, in terms of Church positions, that Catholic (and possibly Orthodox), Protestant, and possibly Jewish views need to be seperated somewhat. Certain areas overlap, while others are distinct (as in Catholic ecclesiastic views).
I think we need to add Galileo Was Wrong, The Church Was Right to the list of books dealing with geocentrism. Volume I deals with the science, and Volume II deals with Scripture, patristics and [Catholic] ecclesiastic issues. Gerardus Buow has strongly endorsed Volume I as the best exposition on the scientific perspective of geocentrism.
I suggest we start with observations, then try to describe the scientific approaches to explaining the observations. The observations clearly can support either heliocentrism or geocenrtism to some degree. We are not obliged to accept current atheistic science as a standard. Just as in evolutionary debates, we should be critical of scientific viewpoints that start with postulates of naturalism and materialism as the driving philosophies. Obviously, revelation and its interpretation is important from a creationist perspective. Certainly we do not want to reject demonstrable, empirical facts. I will continue this later. Markjwyatt 16:05, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
What about relativity?
Geocentricity, heliocentricity, non-centricity -- they're all just coordinate conversions. According to Einstein's theories of relativity, there is no preferred frame of reference, there are just easier and more difficult ones. So why the big deal? Mdotley 16:36, 10 September 2007 (EDT)
You're absolutely right. What other creationists disagree with though is believing the earth is absolutely non-moving(they believe Foucault's pendulum, etc, actually show that the earth must move). But for the pendulum to swing all there needs is a force to move against it, the force can either be the earth's motion, or the universe going around the earth.
Can someone please explain why the difference of measured weight of the same body, taken at different latitudes, could be a clue to the geocentrism?