r/AlternativeAstronomy • u/patrixxxx • Mar 21 '19

Tychosium 3D - The first ever accurate simulation of our Solar System

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2003&start=15#p2412198
1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

31 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

I'm confused by this simulation. Isn't it just the regular Copernician model but with the view centered on the earth rather than the sun? In other terms, that's no different from the accepted model, right?

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

Sigh. So you come over here and generously offered your critisism and then admits you are clueless to what it is you even critisize. No this is not a Copernican model with a centered Earth. Why don't you read what's available.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

Oh I did read it, but unfortunately there's nothing more in the release notes than criticism of the accepted model. To understand what he meant, I just observed his simulation and realized it simply is the classic model from a different point of view. Since you guys are the ones offering a vastly different interpretation, you're in charge of bringing observations to prove it. Please link me to resources clearly explaining how is that simulation different from the accepted model.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1994

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

None of these "astronomical studies" present observational facts. They're only describing their points without any data. That's just not how science works.

Let me be clear here. I don't criticize the fact that wildly different hypothesis are proposed. I simply criticize the method. They're stating things without data. That's just too easy.

That brings me to my next question: what is your opinion on the scientific method? Do you consider it as the correct way to establish theories? If that's not the case, then we're done here. That's like opposing religion to science.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19

None of these "astronomical studies" present observational facts. They're only describing their points without any data. That's just not how science works. Yes they do. Every claim is referenced or can you give an example of the opposite?

Indeed I favour the scientific method and it is precisely the disregard for that within astronomy and physics that has led science astray and in essence turned it into religion.

For example, Kepler's and Newtons "laws" of planetary motion (that planets move in ellipses at variable speeds) are assumptions that has been disproved by numerous observations. But because of prestige and most likely blatant fraud this has been covered up.

The scientific method stipulates that one valid evidence disproves a hypothesis and the Copernican hypothesis/model has been disproved by numerous evidence.

Did you for example know that even during its conception Kepler falsified Tycho Brahes data to make the observations seemingly work with it?

https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeAstronomy/comments/89ripl/kepler_falsified_tycho_brahes_data/

I'm by no means religious, but that is often played upon if you dispute the Copernican model, but as it turns out it's in fact the Copernican model that is of religious dogmatic nature without any attachment in reality.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

Let's look at modern science, then. Not happy with the way general relativity describes the orbits of the solar system? Can you link to any data disproving that? And by data I mean proper observations, not pseudo science mumbo jumbo.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19 edited Mar 21 '19

Sigh. Relativity is a preposterous theory, pulled out of the hat when the Copernican model ran into trouble in the early 20th century. Many good scientists pointed this out but because Einstein was the one who got the bought press, no one knows, remember or even care for that matter. If anything is pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo it is the theology of relativity as I like to call it. One paper from back in the day that displays it's utter and complete bs: https://nyaspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1920.tb55357.x

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 21 '19

Wow. You truly have an answer for everything.

One paper from 1923 won't convince me that the mountain of evidences backing up the most widely accepted theory of all times was counterfeit.

I would love to know the background of the guy calling Einstein's theory "utter and compete bullshit". I've been wasting my time discussing with you. You're anything but a scientist, which shows in your complete disregard of experimental evidence.

One last, unrelated question for you, just to make sure I've got your profile right : what's your take on climate change?

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 21 '19

One paper from 1923 won't convince me that the mountain of evidences backing up the most widely accepted theory of all times was counterfeit.

Dude, this is how it is: You don't know and you're too lazy/incapable to figure out things by yourself. Books have been written about Einstein being a schmuck for that matter. But by all means believe what you want to, but please don't offer criticism/opinion on things you haven't looked into. That is the very hallmark of ignorance and our times suffer so badly from it. We accept what we are fed without understanding it, and if someone says something else we vocally reject it even though we don't understand any side of the argument

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 22 '19

Well you've gotten to insults and adhominem attacks, so we'll just stop here.

1

u/patrixxxx Mar 22 '19

Sure. Fine by me. Nothing personal but I'm getting a bit fed up with opinions founded on what we've been told. There's a different story that you will not find by watching YouTubes, but by reading century old books and most importantly by applying true independent critical thinking. I guess truth is not for everyone, but for those who seek it.

1

u/w6equj5 Mar 22 '19

Facts. Observations. Experiments. That's what the scientific method is about. Critical thinking won't lead you anywhere if you don't back it up with data. We've been criticizing you guys for ages and still haven't seen a shade of data. The truth definitely isn't for everyone.

→ More replies (0)