Thought ya'll might wanta establish a quick bullet list for improved sharp-shooting. [Please note the blue is for additions not in the original post, italics for corrections]
[Note: Some of the following arguments may not apply to every version of Geocentrism. The Aristotle/Ptolemaic system, for example, did not allow for a rotating Earth, yet this is accepted in other geocentrism models.]
Arguments Against Geocentrism:
● Sunspots - Galileo found sunspots which he demonstrated were not shadows from planetary transits. This damaged the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system of perfection.
● Phases of Venus - Galileo found Venus demonstrated phases. Not possible in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system which has Venus between the sun and Earth, thus it can not show a gibbous phase.
● Magnitude variation of Venus - The apparent size of Venus varies. It is large during it’s crescent phase and smaller during it’s gibbous phase. The size (angular area) increases by as much as 36 times in area. This minimizes the change in apparent brightness of Venus. In Ptolemys model, Venus is between us and the Sun causing Venus to always appear in a crescent phase. Thus, the brightness change should be close to 36 times, or a magnitude change of 3.9. However, the observed magnitude change is only 0.75. [see Edit 2 note below]
● Venus has a superior conjunction - Geocentrism can not account for Venus going behind the Sun, which it does. [No transit is observable during this time.] Only inferior conjunction is allowable in Geocentrism.
● The Mountains on the Moon - Galileo, once again, showed imperfection in the heavens.
● Comets - These objects moved through the spheres, as established in the Aristotle system, which should not be possible. (Another Galileo discovery).
● Moons of Jupiter - Galileo found moons orbiting another body (Jupiter). Thus damaging the perfect spheres philosophy inherent in the Aristotle/Ptolemaic system. If smaller objects orbit a larger Jupiter, maybe Earth could orbit the larger Sun.
● Coriolis Effect - A rotating Earth is the only explanation for this. Therefore, the Earth is not fixed.
● Revolving Universe - The universe can not conceivably revolve around the Earth in 24 hours.
● Rotation Rate Variations - Millisecond variations have been found in the rotation rates based on seasonal mass distribution.
● Doppler Results - Radar measurments of the speed of Mars are far less than the travel rate necessary to go around the Earth each day.
Revised Tycho Brahe Geocentrism:
[Planets orbit Sun which orbits a rotating fixed Earth:] [The above arguments do reflect the idea that imperfection is obvious. Also, smaller bodies do orbit larger bodies (e.g. moons of other planets) which suggests the smaller Earth might do the same.] [Note: The Tycho model, and a "Modified Tychonic" model (Baum), is based on a non-rotating Earth]
● Stellar Parallax - When it was not observed due to lack of technology and imagination, it (or lack thereof) supported Geocentrism. Since parallax is clearly observed, the Earth must oscillate as in an orbit (and no longer stationary).
● Meteors - More meteors are observed after midnite than before due to the Earth’s motion around the Sun.
● Newton’s Laws - Objects will revolve around a barycenter and the less massive ones will exhibit a larger orbit. Refined further by Einstein.
● Doppler Shift - A revolving Earth will move toward and, later, away from any given star. This will create a frequency shift in the light observed.
● Stellar Aberration - Although the Earth is traveling at only 1/10000 the speed of light, it is enough to produce elliptical paths of stars. [More.... here ]
● Cosmic Microwave Dipole - The Earth's motion in space causes slight, but measurable, shift in frequency in the CMB appearance (Doppler).
● Galactic rotations - Similar to the moons of Jupiter argument. Rotations are throughout the heavens and our system, Sol, is revolving around the Milky Way's center.
● Orbital Retrograde - [Planets appear to change their direction of orbital travel.] This is explained with great difficulty in geocentrism but easily with the Copernican model. [I suspect today’s much higher resolutions of planetary orbits would make a geocentrism model impossible but, hopefully, someone will illuminate this issue for us.]
● Relativity Contradiction - "... to say geocentrism isn't wrong , you have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to ignore that very same premise." - The BA. There is a strong element of self-centeredness (pun accidental) that is contrary to the moral fountain from which they [claim to] drink.
● Causality - This idea is the basis of the prior bullets. It asks why should we accept a frame, geocentrism, which does such a poor job of explaining what is observed, when other frames do not suffer from this problem? It demands reasons for the effects observed, asking - "what is the cause of these strange behaviors?". If there is not reasonable explanation, maybe it is more reasonable to choose another "valid" frame of reference which does not suffer from anomalies.
Am I close? What am I missing?
[Note: I have moved this from GA as it belongs here]
[Geocentrism is in no way related to Georgecentrism as this model failed me after suffering consequences of parental abuse long ago. :wink: In better words, I am just an average guy here so please incorporate your wisdom to make this something useful for all.]
[Note 2: Edited to remove the apparent size of Venus as an argument as hhE09'1 has shown Venus has the same size variation regardless of model, although Copernicus did use this as an argument in his Revolutionibus]