Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:07:32 UTC No. 16626535
>b-but
>muh stellar parallax!
you must not be a shape rotator. remember that solar and sidereal days are different lengths. Tycho predicts the same stellar parallax as Copernicus
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 12:55:35 UTC No. 16626562
Indeed. Even theory of relativity says it matters not where you put the center of coordinate system. Put it in centre of earth
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 14:56:07 UTC No. 16626636
>>16626531
i don't see ur anus and that's a good thing
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 16:57:17 UTC No. 16626743
>>16626535
>Tycho predicts the same stellar parallax as Copernicus
So it's not worse than copernican model in this detail. Is it better somehow?
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:54:03 UTC No. 16626775
>>16626743
Tie. Both 100%
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 17:57:39 UTC No. 16626776
>>16626743
>>16626775
re:parallax anyway
Physics strongly favors Tycho but I'm driving
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:10:46 UTC No. 16626782
I believe it's neo-Tycho that centers the starfield on the sun. Tycho himself was a naked eye guy and probably didn't know about stellar parallax. It's an easy fix, thought.
Sun = geometric center
Earth = center of mass
Anonymous at Sun, 23 Mar 2025 18:55:52 UTC No. 16626813
>>16626531
Can you imagine the autistic fits as the teeth on his ubermegahyperspirograph would slip and his chart would be all fucked up?
Anonymous at Mon, 24 Mar 2025 02:38:15 UTC No. 16627086
>>16626531
Not an inertial frame. Also doesn't explain stellar parallax or the precession of Mercury.