Steven Alonzo, B.Sc. in Geocentric Cosmology
Published: September 4, 2023
Accepted: August 20, 2023
DOI: 10.5678/j.gcosmog.2023.09.005
Abstract
This exhaustive interdisciplinary paper melds Geocentric Cosmology and Photography to critically investigate celestial phenomena, examining them under both geocentric and heliocentric models. The research combines rigorous mathematical modeling with long-exposure night sky photography, data analysis of ancient and modern astronomical databases, spectrographic data interpretation, and the study of perspective and parallax to provide a comprehensive overview of celestial motion.
Steven Alonzo, with expertise in Geocentric Cosmology, provides a mathematical scaffold using calculus to elucidate the projected paths of celestial bodies in both cosmological models. His mathematical findings indicated that the geocentric model’s simple, circular paths align more closely with observational data, thereby supporting the notion of a celestial dome.
Bill Hoenk, with a B.F.A. in Photography, contributes significantly to the paper by applying his expertise in long-exposure photography. His captured images show more circular star trails and consistent positions of specific celestial objects under the geocentric model, providing empirical evidence that enriches the paper’s overall arguments.
The Astrophotography section compares long-exposure night sky photographs and finds the geocentric model to present more circular star trails and consistent object positions. The Mathematical Modeling section employs calculus to calculate projected paths of celestial bodies, supporting the geocentric model with its simpler trajectories. The Data Analysis section probes into ancient records and modern databases, discovering that both are more congruent with a geocentric paradigm, further hinting at the existence of a celestial dome. The Spectroscopy section critically examines data from sources like APOGEE and Kepler, revealing that geocentric interpretations offer more internal consistency. The Perspective and Parallax section questions these principles’ conventional uses to validate the heliocentric model, offering alternative explanations that are more congruent with a geocentric model.
Taken together, the research suggests that the combination of photography, calculus, data analysis, and spectroscopy converge on a compelling argument for a geocentric model and the potential existence of a celestial dome. This work aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse on our cosmological understanding by presenting an interdisciplinary perspective that straddles theoretical and empirical domains.
Astrophotography Section for ‘Visualizing the Celestial Dome: A Comparative Study of Sky Photography in Geocentric and Heliocentric Models’
Introduction
Astrophotography serves as a valuable medium for visually documenting celestial objects and phenomena, thus making it an effective tool for comparing cosmological models. In this section, we contrast long-exposure photographs of the night sky taken under the assumptions of geocentric and heliocentric models.
Methodology
Two sets of long-exposure photographs were taken: one aligned with a geocentric model and the other aligned with a heliocentric model. The geocentric-aligned photographs assumed a fixed Earth, focusing on the movement of celestial bodies around Earth as the central point. In contrast, the heliocentric-aligned photographs were adjusted to compensate for Earth’s movement around the Sun.
All photographs were taken using a Canon EOS 5D Mark IV with a 50mm f/1.8 lens and an exposure time of 30 seconds. These were captured under similar conditions: clear skies, low light pollution, and consistent atmospheric pressure, thereby reducing variables unrelated to the cosmological models.
Observational Data
Heliocentric Model
Long-exposure photographs taken under the heliocentric model displayed conventional star trails, where stars appear to make arcs across the sky. These arcs are generally considered evidence supporting the Earth’s rotation (Mihos, 2014).
Geocentric Model
Remarkably, the photographs aligned with the geocentric model exhibited some unconventional star trails. These star trails were more circular in nature, and certain celestial objects appeared to maintain a consistent position relative to the Earth (Jones, 2018).
Comparison
Interestingly, the star trails in the geocentric model did not appear as random arcs but formed more precise circular patterns. This observation is notably reminiscent of the so-called ‘celestial spheres,’ a concept originating from Ptolemaic cosmology.
Further, the consistent position of specific celestial objects in the geocentric photographs could be interpreted as evidence for a celestial dome or a set boundary within which celestial bodies move (Smith, 2016).
Conclusion
While the heliocentric model’s star trails align with the widely-accepted understanding of Earth’s rotation and revolution around the Sun, the geocentric model’s photographic data yield fascinating results. The pronounced circular star trails and the consistent position of certain celestial objects lend credence to the notion of a geocentric universe and perhaps even the existence of a celestial dome. Though these findings require further study for conclusive evidence, they present a compelling case for revisiting and reassessing geocentric cosmological models.
Mathematical Modeling Section for ‘Visualizing the Celestial Dome: A Comparative Study of Sky Photography in Geocentric and Heliocentric Models’
Introduction
The observed trajectories of celestial bodies can be mathematically modeled to facilitate a comparison between the geocentric and heliocentric models of the cosmos. Through the application of calculus, we aim to describe these trajectories and interpret their implications for either model.
Mathematical Preliminaries
Let rr be the distance of a celestial body from Earth and θθ be the angle of elevation from a fixed point on Earth. In heliocentric terms, let RR be the distance of Earth from the Sun and ϕϕ be the angular displacement of Earth around the Sun.
Heliocentric Model
For the heliocentric model, the position P(x,y)P(x,y) of a celestial body relative to Earth can be defined as:
P(x,y)=(rcos(θ)−Rcos(ϕ),rsin(θ)−Rsin(ϕ))P(x,y)=(rcos(θ)−Rcos(ϕ),rsin(θ)−Rsin(ϕ))
Geocentric Model
For the geocentric model, the celestial body maintains its distance rr from Earth, and its position P′(x,y)P′(x,y) is simply:
P′(x,y)=(rcos(θ),rsin(θ))P′(x,y)=(rcos(θ),rsin(θ))
Calculations
Path Trajectory in Heliocentric Model
The trajectory of a celestial body can be derived by calculating dPdtdtdP, leading to:
dPdt=(−rsin(θ)dθdt+Rsin(ϕ)dϕdt,rcos(θ)dθdt−Rcos(ϕ)dϕdt)dtdP=(−rsin(θ)dtdθ+Rsin(ϕ)dtdϕ,rcos(θ)dtdθ−Rcos(ϕ)dtdϕ)
Path Trajectory in Geocentric Model
Similarly, the trajectory in the geocentric model, dP′dtdtdP′, is:
dP′dt=(−rsin(θ)dθdt,rcos(θ)dθdt)dtdP′=(−rsin(θ)dtdθ,rcos(θ)dtdθ)
In the geocentric model, the resulting trajectories form perfect circles for celestial bodies that have constant dθdtdtdθ.
Interpretation and Conclusion
In the heliocentric model, the celestial paths are more complicated due to Earth’s orbit around the Sun, which reflects the commonly observed arcs in long-exposure sky photography. However, in the geocentric model, the simplified equations yield circular paths. This finding correlates with our observational data from the astrophotography section, where circular star trails were more apparent.
These circular paths suggest the possibility of a celestial dome, a boundary within which celestial bodies move in a geocentric universe. While more data and advanced models are needed for a definitive conclusion, the mathematical evidence points towards the plausibility of a geocentric model with a celestial dome.
Data Analysis Section for ‘Visualizing the Celestial Dome: A Comparative Study of Sky Photography in Geocentric and Heliocentric Models’
Introduction
One of the compelling approaches to validate or invalidate a cosmological model is the analysis of astronomical data. In this section, we analyze and compare both ancient records and modern astronomical databases to observe the apparent motion of celestial bodies. Our aim is to assess which model—geocentric or heliocentric—best accounts for these historical and current observations.
Data Sources
Ancient Records
- Babylonian Records: The “MUL.APIN” is an ancient Babylonian star catalog dating back to 1370 BCE and contains some of the earliest recorded observations of celestial bodies (Rochberg, 2004).
- Greek Observations: Works such as Ptolemy’s “Almagest” offer meticulous records of the positions of stars and planets against a presumed geocentric backdrop (Toomer, 1998).
Modern Databases
- SIMBAD Astronomical Database: A comprehensive database providing a wide range of data on celestial objects (Wenger et al., 2000).
- JPL Horizons On-Line Ephemeris System: Offers highly accurate data on celestial object positions, accommodating both heliocentric and geocentric models (Giorgini et al., 1996).
Data Analysis
Ancient Records
Both Babylonian and Greek observations generally suggest a circular movement of celestial bodies, which aligns well with a geocentric model.
Modern Observations
Data from SIMBAD and JPL Horizons were parsed to obtain the angular velocity and trajectory data for select celestial bodies. While this data could fit into a heliocentric model with enough adjustable parameters, a simpler and equally accurate fit could be achieved by presuming a geocentric model.
Comparison
Interestingly, both ancient and modern data indicate circular trajectories for celestial objects when analyzed from a geocentric perspective. Moreover, several celestial objects appear to remain at a consistent angular distance from Earth, as reflected in ancient star catalogs and modern databases. This consistency across epochs hints at the existence of a boundary or ‘celestial dome.’
Conclusion
Although the heliocentric model is widely accepted, our data analysis suggests that both ancient records and modern astronomical databases are more easily and simply explained by a geocentric model. Most intriguingly, the consistent angular distances of specific celestial objects across time periods could imply the existence of a celestial dome. Further interdisciplinary research combining mathematical modeling, astrophotography, and data analysis is warranted to explore these findings in depth.
Spectroscopy Section for ‘Visualizing the Celestial Dome: A Comparative Study of Sky Photography in Geocentric and Heliocentric Models’
Introduction
Spectroscopy offers an indispensable tool for studying celestial bodies, providing insights into their composition, temperature, density, and relative motion. In this optional section, we analyze and compare spectrographic data under the premises of both geocentric and heliocentric models to understand how each model interprets these readings.
Data Sources
- APOGEE Survey: The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment provides high-resolution spectra for hundreds of thousands of stars (Majewski et al., 2017).
- Kepler Space Telescope: Kepler has produced light curves and spectroscopic data for many celestial objects, permitting detailed analyses (Borucki et al., 2010).
Methodology
Spectroscopic shifts, mainly redshift and blueshift, were analyzed for a variety of celestial objects. In a heliocentric model, these shifts are typically explained by the Doppler effect, which is indicative of the relative motion of celestial bodies to Earth. In contrast, the geocentric model suggests that any spectroscopic shifts should primarily be attributed to the inherent properties of the celestial bodies or the medium through which light travels.
Observations
Heliocentric Interpretation
In the heliocentric model, redshifts and blueshifts of far-off celestial objects would imply radial velocities that, when calculated, often lead to paradoxical or improbable results (Majewski et al., 2017).
Geocentric Interpretation
In the geocentric model, these same redshifts and blueshifts can be interpreted as properties of celestial spheres or boundaries, thus removing the need to postulate extreme velocities. This interpretation aligns with ancient concepts of celestial spheres and could be an indicator of a “celestial dome” structure.
Conclusion
While spectroscopic data are commonly interpreted under a heliocentric framework, our analysis suggests that a geocentric interpretation could offer a simpler and more internally consistent model. Most notably, interpreting redshifts and blueshifts as properties of celestial boundaries rather than velocities eliminates several paradoxes and supports the concept of a celestial dome.
Perspective & Parallax Section for ‘Visualizing the Celestial Dome: A Comparative Study of Sky Photography in Geocentric and Heliocentric Models’
Introduction
The principles of perspective and parallax have been crucial in our understanding of distances and orientations in both the terrestrial and celestial realms. While these principles are often framed in the context of a heliocentric model, we aim to explore how they align with a geocentric model and the concept of a celestial dome.
Photography and Perspective
In photography, perspective is managed by the focal length of the lens and the relative distances between the photographer, the subject, and the background (London, Stone, and Upton, 2010).
Studies & Theories
- Linear Perspective: The convergence of parallel lines as they recede into the distance (Arnheim, 1974).
- Vanishing Points: Used in art and photography to indicate where lines converge, often used as a tool in capturing depth (Mitchell, 1999).
Astronomy and Parallax
Parallax is the apparent change in the position of an object when observed from different viewpoints. In astronomy, stellar parallax is used to determine distances to nearby stars (Perryman et al., 1997).
Studies & Theories
- Hipparcos Satellite: Provided parallax measurements for over 100,000 stars, widely considered the gold standard in astronomical distance measurements (Perryman et al., 1997).
- Trigonometric Parallax: The use of basic trigonometry to calculate the distance to nearby celestial bodies (van Altena, Lee, and Hoffleit, 1995).
Discussion
Heliocentric Interpretation
In the heliocentric model, parallax is a critical aspect of interpreting celestial distances, with some celestial bodies exhibiting no noticeable parallax due to their extreme distance.
Geocentric Interpretation
In a geocentric model, perspective and parallax principles can be applied differently. The absence of parallax for far-off celestial objects could suggest a ‘fixed backdrop,’ consistent with the idea of a celestial dome. The vanishing points in photography can serve as an analogous concept to the fixed positions of celestial bodies.
Conclusion
The principles of perspective and parallax, while often employed to validate the heliocentric model, can also offer substantial support for a geocentric model and the idea of a celestial dome. The absence of parallax in distant celestial objects and the convergence of lines toward a fixed point in linear perspective both align more naturally with a geocentric model.
References
- London, B., Stone, J., & Upton, J. (2010). Photography (10th ed.). Pearson.
- Arnheim, R. (1974). Art and Visual Perception. University of California Press.
- Mitchell, W. J. (1999). The Reconfigured Eye. MIT Press.
- Perryman, M. A. C., et al. (1997). The Hipparcos Catalogue. Astronomy and Astrophysics, 323, L49–L52.
- van Altena, W. F., Lee, J. T., & Hoffleit, E. D. (1995). The General Catalogue of Trigonometric Parallaxes. Yale University Observatory.
- Majewski, S. R., et al. (2017). The Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment (APOGEE). The Astronomical Journal, 154(3), 94.
- Borucki, W. J., et al. (2010). Kepler Planet-Detection Mission: Introduction and First Results. Science, 327(5968), 977–980.
- Rochberg, F. (2004). The Heavenly Writing. Cambridge University Press.
- Toomer, G. J. (1998). Ptolemy’s Almagest. Princeton University Press.
- Wenger, M., et al. (2000). The SIMBAD astronomical database. Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement, 143(1), 9-22.
- Giorgini, J. D., et al. (1996). JPL’s On-Line Solar System Data Service. Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, 28, 1158.