Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

is it catholic propaganda or just idiots? if im remembering correctly the catholic church admitted galeleo was correct in the 60's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

"In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the disproved theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it."

Disproved is the key word.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
is it catholic propaganda or just idiots?
That makes very little to argue on, don't you think?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

"In astronomy, the geocentric model of the universe is the disproved theory that the Earth is at the center of the universe and the Sun and other objects go around it."

Disproved is the key word.
Please tell me how it is disproved, because if you believe in relativity; then geocentrism is just as viable as heliocentrism.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
That makes very little to argue on, don't you think?

ok and let me add, where is the proof for the geocentric theory? with modern instruments we can clearly see we are revolving around the sun

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model


And for the record that is Wikipedia, not a scientific journal.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
And for the record that is Wikipedia, not a scientific journal.

well as we speak wikipedia is getting more and more reliable, they have analyzed most of the info and determined it to be around 70 % accurate or higher

Originally posted by chickenlover98
ok and let me add, where is the proof for the geocentric theory? with modern instruments we can clearly see we are revolving around the sun
In fact we cannot. with Relativity all motion is relative. For example, if you are on the moon and see the earth appear to move; it is just as viable that you are going around it with the "illusion" of the earth in motion. Same thing could happen on earth with the sun in the heliocentric model. And further yet, if you were in the vacuum of space, you would still see motion because the center of the universe would reside at a point at or near the earth's center.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Please tell me how it is disproved, because if you believe in relativity; then geocentrism is just as viable as heliocentrism. Not really. We know where the center of the universe is.......and it's not us.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Please tell me how it is disproved, because if you believe in relativity; then geocentrism is just as viable as heliocentrism.

Two reasons:

Venus has phases, and the planets periods match the planets orbits. These can only be true if the sun is the center of the solar system.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Two reasons:

Venus has phases, and the planets periods match the planets orbits. These can only be true if the sun is the center of the solar system.



edit, in case u couldnt count, thats 1

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Two reasons:

Venus has phases, and the planets periods match the planets orbits. These can only be true if the sun is the center of the solar system.
Not true. If the planets of our solar system were revolving around the sun (the most massive object in our solar system), but the combined force of all the universe (including the solar system) rested at earth's center, then we would see the same phases. Also a geocentric model would make such things as red-shifts and tides much more plausible in the way they are created.

Originally posted by chickenlover98


edit, in case u couldnt count, thats 1

Sorry, but I ran them together.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Not true. If the planets of our solar system were revolving around the sun (the most massive object in our solar system), but the combined force of all the universe (including the solar system) rested at earth's center, then we would see the same phases. Also a geocentric model would make such things as red-shifts and tides much more plausible in the way they are created.

You will have to prove that.

Its simple, by the premies of relativity: the phases of Venus occur because supposedly we are passing it etc. But if the solar system was revolving around earth, the same effect would occur, but it would not be us passing Venus, but venus passing by us.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Its simple, by the premies of relativity: the phases of Venus occur because supposedly we are passing it etc. But if the solar system was revolving around earth, the same effect would occur, but it would not be us passing Venus, but venus passing by us.

No, that is wrong. Remember the sun would also be going around us.

Trans, do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because you're about 10 centuries too late to fit in. Besides, if this had any rational backing there'd be scientific debate. There isn't. Just because you can pull something that sounds intelligent (it's not, btw) out of your ass doesn't mean you're able to posit your own theories about anything. At least ID stupidity has some strength in numbers. But this is stupidity on....i dunno....a Corey Feldman 80's B-movie level.

"Ah yes, relativity yadda yadda yadda....and you see how it makes perfect sense that everything that's accepted by everyone around the world is false." Paraphrased, of course.

At least pick battles that make sense.

All this means is that you can wrongly apply parts of legitimate science to justify your quacked beliefs. At this point, you have me hoping that this is just trolling, because that would be preferable to thinking there's people who actually believe this.

This sh*t belongs in the conspiracy forum....generally there's at least some semblance of rationality in this forum, and we should try to keep it that way.

Originally posted by DigiMark007


Trans, do you consider yourself a Catholic? Because you're about 10 centuries too late to fit in. Besides, if this had any rational backing there'd be scientific debate. There isn't. Just because you can pull something that sounds intelligent (it's not, btw) out of your ass doesn't mean you're able to posit your own theories about anything. At least ID stupidity has some strength in numbers. But this is stupidity on....i dunno....a Corey Feldman 80's B-movie level.

"Ah yes, relativity yadda yadda yadda....and you see how it makes perfect sense that everything that's accepted by everyone around the world is false." Paraphrased, of course.

At least pick battles that make sense.

All this means is that you can wrongly apply parts of legitimate science to justify your quacked beliefs. At this point, you have me hoping that this is just trolling, because that would be preferable to thinking there's people who actually believe this.

This sh*t belongs in the conspiracy forum....generally there's at least some semblance of rationality in this forum, and we should try to keep it that way.
Let me say that I am a Catholic. And a catholic who believes that traditional church teaching has a semblance of a chance to be accurate. And just because something is mostly disregarded does not mean it is absolute. What I have been arguing is scientific, not conspiracy. I pick my battles as I see them. And let me say in this argument, I do have a position.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, that is wrong. Remember the sun would also be going around us.
Not true. The Geocentric model I am advancing suggests that the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun, but the combined universe as a whole revolves around earth. The sun would be going around us, but only in such a way as it appears to be now, therefore disproving your argument.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Not true. The Geocentric model I am advancing suggests that the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun, but the combined universe as a whole revolves around earth. The sun would be going around us, but only in such a way as it appears to be now, therefore disproving your argument.

so ur saying we go around the sun but the universe goes around us?

If you go for relativity, I don't see how motion matters in any way. Wouldn't everything be pretty much static?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
so ur saying we go around the sun but the universe goes around us?
No. By the solar system I meant every planet except earth, sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
No. By the solar system I meant every planet except earth, sorry for the confusion.

dude that doesnt even make sense,that means the other planets revolve around the sun and us.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
dude that doesnt even make sense,that means the other planets revolve around the sun and us.
No. As per relativity, the body with the least mass will revolve around the more massive one. The difference here is that the earth occupies a privileged position at the central point of all the mass of the universe. This causes the planets of the solar system (excluding earth of course) to revolve around the sun, but because the solar system is part of the universe, it too revolves around the earth and that creates the effect of supposed motion of the earth.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Let me say that I am a Catholic. And a catholic who believes that traditional church teaching has a semblance of a chance to be accurate. And just because something is mostly disregarded does not mean it is absolute. What I have been arguing is scientific, not conspiracy. I pick my battles as I see them. And let me say in this argument, I do have a position.



I find it so amazing how deep in denial you are



Bro...we orbit the sun as do the other eight planets. If the sun orbits us, then what do the other planets orbit ?

The Sun is far larger than we are, its gravity stronger, therefore we orbit the sun as part of its gravitational pull, not the other way around. The sun cannot orbit the Earth, because the Earth's gravitational force is not strong enough to influence the sun to that degree.

Do you understand this my freind ?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
No. As per relativity, the body with the least mass will revolve around the more massive one. The difference here is that the earth occupies a privileged position at the central point of all the mass of the universe. This causes the planets of the solar system (excluding earth of course) to revolve around the sun, but because the solar system is part of the universe, it too revolves around the earth and that creates the effect of supposed motion of the earth.


Oh boy...this is going to take even longer than I imagined.


Dude, our solar system is at the EDGE of our galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy. We aren't even at the center of our own galaxy, so how the hell are we going to be the center of the universe ?


Ahhh.....Traditional Christian ignorance frustates the hell out of me !!!!!

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
I find it so amazing how deep in denial you are



Bro...we orbit the sun as do the other eight planets. If the sun orbits us, then what do the other planets orbit ?

The Sun is far larger than we are, its gravity stronger, therefore we orbit the sun as part of its gravitational pull, not the other way around. The sun cannot orbit the Earth, because the Earth's gravitational force is not strong enough to influence the sun to that degree.

Do you understand this my freind ?
Can you look up one post? That will answer all your questions .

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
Oh boy...this is going to take even longer than I imagined.


Dude, our solar system is at the EDGE of our galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy. We aren't even at the center of our own galaxy, so how the hell are we going to be the center of the universe ?


Ahhh.....Traditional Christian ignorance frustates the hell out of me !!!!!
Our galaxy is not the universe. We could be at the center of the universe, which would explain the reason we have only found life on this planet, could explain the redshift (only seen when heavenly objects are moving away from us) in all directions from the earth, and the tides (instead of the moon pulling the water it is the combined force of all the universe). And on the subject of tides let me point this out. For the oceans that blanketed the earth in evolutionary history, the moon (if it was the cause of tides) had to be much closer to the earth than where it is now. If this is to be the case, the moon must have always been moving away from the Earth, slowly but surely. Unfortunately when we started taking readings of the moon and its drift we found that there was none. Either the moon has not drifted (making that section of evolutionary history flawed) or it has somehow reached a "harmonic with the sun and stars." And what do you have against Traditional Catholicism?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Our galaxy is not the universe. We could be at the center of the universe, which would explain the reason we have only found life on this planet, could explain the redshift (only seen when heavenly objects are moving away from us) in all directions from the earth, and the tides (instead of the moon pulling the water it is the combined force of all the universe). And on the subject of tides let me point this out. For the oceans that blanketed the earth in evolutionary history, the moon (if it was the cause of tides) had to be much closer to the earth than where it is now. If this is to be the case, the moon must have always been moving away from the Earth, slowly but surely. Unfortunately when we started taking readings of the moon and its drift we found that there was none. Either the moon has not drifted (making that section of evolutionary history flawed) or it has somehow reached a "harmonic with the sun and stars." And what do you have against Traditional Catholicism?

he's gay

Originally posted by chickenlover98
he's gay
Please send your hate tactics to the conspiracy forum

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Not true. The Geocentric model I am advancing suggests that the planets in the solar system revolve around the sun, but the combined universe as a whole revolves around earth. The sun would be going around us, but only in such a way as it appears to be now, therefore disproving your argument.

All you are doing is wrapping the word "BECAUSE" with fancy lingo. Sorry, but you don't know what you are saying. You are saying that the Earth goes around the sun while the Universe goes around the Earth. The universe does not rotate; the universe is expanding.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Please send your hate tactics to the conspiracy forum

hate tactics?????? i dont hate him, you asked what his problem was with catholocism. it isnt a secret he's openly gay and his sig is a CLEAR implication. he has stated multiple times that he's gay

Where is a moderator? This is not on Geocentrism......

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Where is a moderator? This is not on Geocentrism......

can u PLEASE read your own post. you asked why he had a problem with catholocism i answered ur EFFIN question. and in case u didnt know it isnt against the rules to go off topic. in fact it happens QUITE alot

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
All you are doing is wrapping the word "BECAUSE" with fancy lingo. Sorry, but you don't know what you are saying. You are saying that the Earth goes around the sun while the Universe goes around the Earth. The universe does not rotate; the universe is expanding.
Please, tell me how the universe is expanding would have any problem with Geocentrism if it merely was rotating (which it would around the center of mass)? I see no discrepancy here.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
can u PLEASE read your own post. you asked why he had a problem with catholocism i answered ur EFFIN question. and in case u didnt know it isnt against the rules to go off topic. in fact it happens QUITE alot
Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that was directed at me. Sorry.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Oh, I am sorry. I misunderstood. I thought that was directed at me. Sorry.

why the **** would that be directed at you??? SOD is gay it is a fact, you asked and i answered, if u wanted to clarify u could have asked

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Please, tell me how the universe is expanding would have any problem with Geocentrism if it merely was rotating (which it would around the center of mass)? I see no discrepancy here.

But the universe is not rotating. There is no center of a 4 dimensional universe in the 3ed dimension.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the universe is not rotating. There is no center of a 4 dimensional universe in the 3ed dimension.
What is this 4th dimension? Just curious.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
What is this 4th dimension? Just curious.

actually id like to know that 2

Originally posted by Transfinitum
What is this 4th dimension? Just curious.


http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/whatis4d.html

Originally posted by Shakyamunison



http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/7997/whatis4d.html
Let me first say I am not very literate at math. So, could you help me out by simplifying it a tad? Thanks.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Let me first say I am not very literate at math. So, could you help me out by simplifying it a tad? Thanks.
You have no right to be talking then.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You have no right to be talking then.
I disagree, I was merely asking a favor; if that is too much I will learn it on my own. I just wanted to make the process simpler and faster.

Originally posted by King Kandy
You have no right to be talking then.

incorrect. it is not right to assume that a 10th grader would have advanced skills in math. also this is a religion forum not a math forum. if a simplified answer is requested please provide 1

Originally posted by King Kandy
You have no right to be talking then.

i do believe i withdraw my previous statement. the math required to under stand that page is rediculusly small, a baby could handle that. good job transfitium, you sir a re a genius

Originally posted by Transfinitum
What is this 4th dimension? Just curious. Time. It is basically time.

Now tell me, how does time not exist at the central point of the universe and yet appears everywhere else?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Now tell me, how does time not exist at the central point of the universe and yet appears everywhere else?

Imagine space as a fabric of space and time. You could describe the universe like a ball with the skin of the ball being the 3D space around us. The 4th dimension is the curvature of the ball. The center would be inside the ball and not found anywhere on the surface of the ball.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
is it catholic propaganda or just idiots? if im remembering correctly the catholic church admitted galeleo was correct in the 60's

explain to me how this is propaganda
does the Church saying our planet is the center of everything afford them some sort of political or social power ?
also since the Church is pretty much the polar opposite of the "traditional Christian image", which is usually something Evangelical or redneck-ish, i see no reason to assume they denied a fact known for centuries and only admitted to it in 1960
about as ludicrous as the idea most people thought the world was flat when Columbus tried to find India

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Now tell me, how does time not exist at the central point of the universe and yet appears everywhere else?

How do you even define your "center of the universe" idea? What is the center of the universe?

Originally posted by Bardock42
How do you even define your "center of the universe" idea? What is the center of the universe?

I think the center of the universe would be his middle finger.

its simple, there is alot of motion in the universe. the earth also revolves around axis. technically, if it was the centre than it alone wuc be stationary and everything would move around IT. you misunderstand many implications of reletivity. assume that i is not infact the earth revolving but the universe revolving around us. now think for a second, the radii of the stars and galaxies which revolve around us would be too massive to right here. but technically, by ur assumption, they go around us in those orbits every 24 HOURS. such speeds are much much much mcuh much greater than the speed of light, and hence not possible by reletivity. conclusion, it is us moving and not the universe. the earth is not the centr of the universe.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Please tell me how it is disproved, because if you believe in relativity; then geocentrism is just as viable as heliocentrism.

Ugh, what a joke. Do you also go on christian websites and troll them, pretending to be an idiot evolutionist?

Originally posted by Devil King
Ugh, what a joke. Do you also go on christian websites and troll them, pretending to be an idiot evolutionist?

Are you sure he is pretending?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Are you sure he is pretending?

Only a ****ing troll goes on a website and argues that the sun isn't the center of the solar system.

Originally posted by Devil King
Only a ****ing troll goes on a website and argues that the sun isn't the center of the solar system.

Perhaps, but he also my believe it. I have seen enough to never exclude that possibility.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Perhaps, but he also my believe it.

That would actually be even more sad.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
is it catholic propaganda or just idiots? if im remembering correctly the catholic church admitted galeleo was correct in the 60's

who cares..they are just doing what they think is morally good. Up the Ra!

Originally posted by Kevy2007
who cares..they are just doing what they think is morally good.

How would saying the the solar system was geocentric have anything to do with morality?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its simple, there is alot of motion in the universe. the earth also revolves around axis. technically, if it was the centre than it alone wuc be stationary and everything would move around IT. you misunderstand many implications of reletivity. assume that i is not infact the earth revolving but the universe revolving around us. now think for a second, the radii of the stars and galaxies which revolve around us would be too massive to right here. but technically, by ur assumption, they go around us in those orbits every 24 HOURS. such speeds are much much much mcuh much greater than the speed of light, and hence not possible by reletivity. conclusion, it is us moving and not the universe. the earth is not the centr of the universe.
Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed "C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that "space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your pick, physics can accommodate either model.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed "C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that "space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your pick, physics can accommodate either model.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed "C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that "space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your pick, physics can accommodate either model.

so ur saying the earth is basically static and doesnt move? are ****ING RETARDED?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it.

That's what I like to call an out and out lie.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's what I like to call an out and out lie.
Show me that I am wrong; then call me a liar.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Show me that I am wrong; then call me a liar.

Foucault pendulum. Look it up.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Show me that I am wrong; then call me a liar.

Also, the orbit of the moon is causing to Earth to slow down in it's rotation. The amount is very very small, but measurable. If what you are saying is true, then the moon would be causing the universe to slow down instead.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Foucault pendulum. Look it up.
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a manifestation of the Coriolis force. This same force is responsible for the east-to-west motion in atmospheric winds and weather patterns. The first thing to understand is that the same forces which are responsible for the Foucault pendulum effect have been rigorously derived mathematically from models where a rotating mass acts upon a stationary center (Geocentrism). But let's begin by asking a simple question, If the Earth is truly rotating underneath the Foucault pendulum, then what force is holding the pendulum in the same plane as the Earth rotates beneath it? This is what is called in physics an "unresolved force". For the Geocentric explanation of this force, allow me to quote Albert Einstein (a fellow who is reputed to know a thing or two about these matters...) in his letter of June 25th, 1913 to the physicist Ernst Mach: "(1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter "S", then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucalt pendulum is dragged around." Needless to say, the Foucault pendulum constitutes no proof whatsoever of a rotating Earth.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a manifestation of the Coriolis force. This same force is responsible for the east-to-west motion in atmospheric winds and weather patterns. The first thing to understand is that the same forces which are responsible for the Foucault pendulum effect have been rigorously derived mathematically from models where a rotating mass acts upon a stationary center (Geocentrism). But let's begin by asking a simple question, If the Earth is truly rotating underneath the Foucault pendulum, then what force is holding the pendulum in the same plane as the Earth rotates beneath it? This is what is called in physics an "unresolved force". For the Geocentric explanation of this force, allow me to quote Albert Einstein (a fellow who is reputed to know a thing or two about these matters...) in his letter of June 25th, 1913 to the physicist Ernst Mach: "(1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter "S", then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucalt pendulum is dragged around." Needless to say, the Foucault pendulum constitutes no proof whatsoever of a rotating Earth.

at least he knows his shit

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Also, the orbit of the moon is causing to Earth to slow down in it's rotation. The amount is very very small, but measurable. If what you are saying is true, then the moon would be causing the universe to slow down instead.
If I understand you correctly, you mean to claim that the Earth of 4.5 billion years of age has been slowing down in its diurnal motion for at least 4 billion of those years; when the moon appeared in an orbital relationship to account for this alleged slowing. Is this correct? If so, then has the rate of slowing changed over time? The reason I ask is that if we extrapolate this supposed "slowing down" on the Earth's supposed rotation for an approximately 4 billion year old period, then we find that just 2 billion years ago; the moon would have been less than 25,000 miles from the Earth and orbiting 3.5 times per day, thus causing tides at least a million times greater than they are now. This would cause massive flooding, temperature fluctuations, and other extreme environmental factors which would wreck havoc on the fragile ecosystems reported to have nurtured the emergence of life. But it gets worse, how is it that now (and for the entirety of known history) we have had a 24-hour day? How is it that the Earth knew to stop slowing down when it reached a 24-hour day? Over and above all this, you refer to this alleged aberration as if it were an observed and established fact; but it has been calculated that tidal friction inside the earth can account for only about 1/6 of the alleged retardation of the Earth's rotation in the past 25 years. To what do you propose to ascribe the other 5/6ths? According to K.E Veselov in his book "Pushing Gravity", "... the value of that retardation for the past 25 years obtained experimentally by employing atomic timing devices is simply dismissed as anomalous." So are you sure that we are talking about a measured phenomenon? Perhaps you can address some of these issues.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If I understand you correctly, you mean to claim that the Earth of 4.5 billion years of age has been slowing down in its diurnal motion for at least 4 billion of those years; when the moon appeared in an orbital relationship to account for this alleged slowing. Is this correct? If so, then has the rate of slowing changed over time? The reason I ask is that if we extrapolate this supposed "slowing down" on the Earth's supposed rotation for an approximately 4 billion year old period, then we find that just 2 billion years ago; the moon would have been less than 25,000 miles from the Earth and orbiting 3.5 times per day, thus causing tides at least a million times greater than they are now. This would cause massive flooding, temperature fluctuations, and other extreme environmental factors which would wreck havoc on the fragile ecosystems reported to have nurtured the emergence of life. But it gets worse, how is it that now (and for the entirety of known history) we have had a 24-hour day? How is it that the Earth knew to stop slowing down when it reached a 24-hour day? Over and above all this, you refer to this alleged aberration as if it were an observed and established fact; but it has been calculated that tidal friction inside the earth can account for only about 1/6 of the alleged retardation of the Earth's rotation in the past 25 years. To what do you propose to ascribe the other 5/6ths? According to K.E Veselov in his book "Pushing Gravity", "... the value of that retardation for the past 25 years obtained experimentally by employing atomic timing devices is simply dismissed as anomalous." So are you sure that we are talking about a measured phenomenon? Perhaps you can address some of these issues.



The fact that the Earth rotates means it's not static

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
The fact that the Earth rotates means it's not static
I was showing how the "slowing of the Earth" is not a viable argument for Earth's rotation. During the refutation I was merely assuming the rotation to be true to combat his argument.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I was showing how the "slowing of the Earth" is not a viable argument for Earth's rotation. During the refutation I was merely assuming the rotation to be true to combat his argument.


How do you explain the four seasons then ?


I cannot beleive we are even bothering with this discussion. You truly beleive that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun and the rest of the universe revolves around us ?


Wake up, and Get the facts straight dude:


1) Earth, as do the other eight planets, orbit the sun. Our earth is tilted, and we revolve closer towards the sun in Winter, getting an indirect hit, and farther from the sun in summer getting a more direct hit (atleast in the upper hemisphere). This is how Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall come to be.

2) The Sun is at the tip of our Milky Way Galaxy, which at its center is a black hole with a bright quasar. All the stars in our galaxy orbit this center. Including our sun.

3) There are billions and billions of galaxies. We are only at the tip of our own. How do you figure we are at the center of the universe, when are aren't even the center of our own galaxy, much less solar system ?



I cannot beleive you will completely deny the facts just to support your delusional version of the cosmos, based on your Bible. It's pathetic. You shouldn't have to lie to yourself and make shit up just to validify your Faith.

Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
How do you explain the four seasons then ?


I cannot beleive we are even bothering with this discussion. You truly beleive that the Earth is the center of the universe, and that the sun and the rest of the universe revolves around us ?


Wake up, and Get the facts straight dude:


1) Earth, as do the other eight planets, orbit the sun. Our earth is tilted, and we revolve closer towards the sun in Winter, getting an indirect hit, and farther from the sun in summer getting a more direct hit (atleast in the upper hemisphere). This is how Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall come to be.

2) The Sun is at the tip of our Milky Way Galaxy, which at its center is a black hole with a bright quasar. All the stars in our galaxy orbit this center. Including our sun.

3) There are billions and billions of galaxies. We are only at the tip of our own. How do you figure we are at the center of the universe, when are aren't even the center of our own galaxy, much less solar system ?



I cannot beleive you will completely deny the facts just to support your delusional version of the cosmos, based on your Bible. It's pathetic. You shouldn't have to lie to yourself and make shit up just to validify your Faith.
Your assertion that the Earth orbits the sun is just that, an assertion. You certainly have not proved it by your argument involving the seasons for the following reasons: In the Geocentric model, we can appeal to the great German physicist Hanz Thirring. In 1918 Thirring wrote a paper entitled "On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation". On page 37 he writes, "As one can see the first terms of the x and y components correspond to the Corillis force, and the second terms correspond to the centrifugal force. The third equation yields the surprising result that the centrifugal force possesses an axial component." Thirring says that objects near the equator attain more mass than objects at the poles since objects near the equator are moving faster. Relativity says that objects in motion have more mass than immobile objects, thus it is the extra mass in motion that is creating the axial centrifugal force. Thirring says that the above situation would be the same if the universe, rotating around Earth, had a greater proportion of its mass at the equator and less at its poles. This would also account for the force necessary for the universe to precess, or wobble, as it turns; thus creating the seasons and the other precessional phenomenon we see in the sky. As in all gyroscopes, the center of mass does not move, and thus the universe can rotate and precess, accounting for the seasons; without ever disturbing the Earth. There is absolutely no evidence for the assertions you make in your second point. No black hole has ever been observed at the center of our galaxy; you assert what you ought to be proving. Learn the difference between the two please. And on your third point you again assert what you cannot prove, once again. No one has proven the location of the center of our Galaxy or anywhere else. However, the mathematical model of the Geocentric universe is completely consistent with the Theory of Relativity, given a finite, rotating universe; there will certainly be one, unique, center of mass and Geocentrism states that unique position will be occupied by the Earth.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your assertion that the Earth orbits the sun is just that, an assertion. You certainly have not proved it by your argument involving the seasons for the following reasons: In the Geocentric model, we can appeal to the great German physicist Hanz Thirring. In 1918 Thirring wrote a paper entitled "On the Effect of Rotating Distant Masses in Einstein's Theory of Gravitation". On page 37 he writes, "As one can see the first terms of the x and y components correspond to the Corillis force, and the second terms correspond to the centrifugal force. The third equation yields the surprising result that the centrifugal force possesses an axial component." Thirring says that objects near the equator attain more mass than objects at the poles since objects near the equator are moving faster. Relativity says that objects in motion have more mass than immobile objects, thus it is the extra mass in motion that is creating the axial centrifugal force. Thirring says that the above situation would be the same if the universe, rotating around Earth, had a greater proportion of its mass at the equator and less at its poles. This would also account for the force necessary for the universe to precess, or wobble, as it turns; thus creating the seasons and the other precessional phenomenon we see in the sky. As in all gyroscopes, the center of mass does not move, and thus the universe can rotate and precess, accounting for the seasons; without ever disturbing the Earth. There is absolutely no evidence for the assertions you make in your second point. No black hole has ever been observed at the center of our galaxy; you assert what you ought to be proving. Learn the difference between the two please. And on your third point you again assert what you cannot prove, once again. No one has proven the location of the center of our Galaxy or anywhere else. However, the mathematical model of the Geocentric universe is completely consistent with the Theory of Relativity, given a finite, rotating universe; there will certainly be one, unique, center of mass and Geocentrism states that unique position will be occupied by the Earth.

well he's wrong......but at least he has evidence towards his position.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I am afraid that your link does not agree with you, "The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation describes the seemingly rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals in the fossil record, around 530 million years ago." And even if your dates would have been correct, it is completely preposterous to talk about the explosion of Cambrian life-forms occurring during conditions of thrice-daily thousand-food floods sweeping across every square inch of the Earth. This is obviously impossible.

There is a big difference between 530 million years and 2 billion years. 2 billion years ago all that lived on the Earth was bacteria. By 530 million years ago the moon was further away, and the tidal forces of 2 billion ago were gone.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Either that, or the measurements are inaccurate; as indicated by my previous quote

Occam's razor.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Especially if the entire past 25 years worth of measurements are simply dismissed as an anomaly, because they are 5/6th too large to be accounted for by the theory. I have absolutely no problem if you find that explanation more plausible, but that does not constitute scientific proof.

25 years is nothing compared to the vastness of 4 billion.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
25 years is nothing compared to the vastness of 4 billion.

4.5 billion

Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you

time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to

measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was

formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its

axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your

attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of

Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will

disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of

mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday

life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of

objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity

establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is

quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently

strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed

"C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that

"space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the

plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the

electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your

pick, physics can accommodate either model.

oh NO s , meisa has been trumped by a smart creationist. lol. not really. the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vague

term, it may be explosion or implosion. the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about in

TERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space. things have only been THEORISED to

move faster than light in gravity field. however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending in

space itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space. also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating than

every galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in

their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.

2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion

light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten

trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much

much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend. it is the EARTH rotating

not the entire universe around it . furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities and

distances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}

that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity. yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. if

there were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human

comprehension. furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen. if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.

your whole hypothesis from top to bottom is ridiculous here. and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction.

A friend of mine provided this quote and pretty much sums up everything regarding geocentrism:

You cant prove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics (do you really expect an object 333x massive as the earth like the sun to revolve around it?) and the centre of the universe means sh!t in General Relativity (since everyting is "relative", might as well say that the universe revolves around the moon.) hence claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe is useless.

i'm still wondering how how this is propaganda....

Originally posted by 123KID
i'm still wondering how how this is propaganda....

the catholic church spread the idea that geocentric theory was correct and even ater galileo proved them wrong they continued to advocate the position. it may not pertain to the actual conversation but w/e

Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Foucault pendulum experiment is a manifestation of the Coriolis force. This same force is responsible for the east-to-west motion in atmospheric winds and weather patterns. The first thing to understand is that the same forces which are responsible for the Foucault pendulum effect have been rigorously derived mathematically from models where a rotating mass acts upon a stationary center (Geocentrism). But let's begin by asking a simple question, If the Earth is truly rotating underneath the Foucault pendulum, then what force is holding the pendulum in the same plane as the Earth rotates beneath it? This is what is called in physics an "unresolved force". For the Geocentric explanation of this force, allow me to quote Albert Einstein (a fellow who is reputed to know a thing or two about these matters...) in his letter of June 25th, 1913 to the physicist Ernst Mach: "(1) If one accelerates a heavy shell of matter "S", then a mass enclosed by that shell experiences an accelerative force. (2) If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucalt pendulum is dragged around." Needless to say, the Foucault pendulum constitutes no proof whatsoever of a rotating Earth.

the coriolis effect has also been observed on mars as an indentical force as to what it is on earth...surely the both cant be the stationary centre with all mass rotating around it

also your point earlier about read shift...red shift occurs when a light source moves away from the observer...surely if all objects were rotating around a geocentric earth then no red shift would be observed and surely if you compensate for this by saying...for example...that some of these rotating objects may have an eliptical orbit and as such red shift could be observed...then the opposite of red shift would be observed....but isn't in the case of individual objects...only in regards to galaxies which are rotating towards our vantage point...or the andromeda galaxy which is moving towards ours

hence red shift is evidence of an expanding universe away from earth rather than orbiting around it

also i believe the theory of relativity was based on the lorentz transformations which used the now defunct idea of aether being the only true stationary thing in the universe and if the earth was geocentric then it would be the only thing that remained stationary in relation to aether but was disproved

Originally posted by Templares
A friend of mine provided this quote and pretty much sums up everything regarding geocentrism:

You cant prove geocentrism using Newtonian mechanics (do you really expect an object 333x massive as the earth like the sun to revolve around it?) and the centre of the universe means sh!t in General Relativity (since everyting is "relative", might as well say that the universe revolves around the moon.) hence claiming that the earth is the centre of the universe is useless.
If you accept Relativity, you cannot claim Heliocentrism. Perhaps this fact has not sunk in yet among some. I encourage you to read my first sentence ten times very slowly until it does. I, on the other hand am defending Geocentrism. Since the defenders of Heliocentrism here accept relativity; they suffer from a terrible, apparently unrecognized logical contradiction in their world view. I suffer from no such contradiction, since I claim that there is both a "preferred reference frame" and a center of the universe, and that both of those are exactly the same thing, Earth. Every single argument advanced so far to prove the motion of the Earth has been thoroughly demonstrated not to do so. On your point of Newtonian mechanics, you mention mass; let me point out that the less massive heavenly body will not always revolve around the most massive one, This center of mass is not necessarily the most massive object, but the center at which the combined masses "balance out". You have no point here.

Originally posted by jaden101
the coriolis effect has also been observed on mars as an indentical force as to what it is on earth...surely the both cant be the stationary centre with all mass rotating around it

also your point earlier about read shift...red shift occurs when a light source moves away from the observer...surely if all objects were rotating around a geocentric earth then no red shift would be observed and surely if you compensate for this by saying...for example...that some of these rotating objects may have an eliptical orbit and as such red shift could be observed...then the opposite of red shift would be observed....but isn't in the case of individual objects...only in regards to galaxies which are rotating towards our vantage point...or the andromeda galaxy which is moving towards ours

hence red shift is evidence of an expanding universe away from earth rather than orbiting around it

also i believe the theory of relativity was based on the lorentz transformations which used the now defunct idea of aether being the only true stationary thing in the universe and if the earth was geocentric then it would be the only thing that remained stationary in relation to aether but was disproved

Perhaps you did not understand my previous posts; the Coriolis force arises in either case- if a body is rotating or, if a body is at rest at the center of a spherical shell. Please post your citation for the Coriolis force having been observed on Mars. I am particularly interested in the precise values observed and how they were obtained. Also be sure to include observed measurements and values for the centrifugal and axial centrifugal forces. I look forward to your citation; it should be quite interesting.
If red shift is a measure of recessionary velocity, then the Quasar distributuon problem just sank Relativity under your feet. As Halton Arp memorably puts it: "For supposed recession velocities of Quasars, to measure equal steps in all directions in the sky means we are at the center of a series of explosions. This is an anti-Copernican embarrassment, so a simple glance at the evidence... shows that extra-galactic red shifts, in general, cannot be velocities."
The aether is defunct? Somebody forgot to tell Albert Einstein, who says in his 1924 article titled "Uber den Ather": " According to the General Theory of Relativity, space without aether is unthinkable; for in such space no only would there be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time." It is true that "Special Relativity" dispensed with the aether, but it was re-introduced into General Relativity as the quote above demonstrates. As for your assertion that any experiment at any time in the history of science has ever disproven a motionless Earth, you are simply wrong as I have exhaustively shown throughout this thread.

god i wish digi would post.....

Originally posted by leonheartmm
Your assertion that the Earth rotates on its axis is just that, an assertion. You have no proof for that and to save you

time I will tell you no experiment has ever proven it. Through centuries, scientists attempted experiments designed to

measure this alleged motion of the Earth. All such experiments failed to detect it. The Theory of Relativity itself was

formulated to explain the failure of any terrestrial experiment to detect either the motion of the earth rotating on its

axis or the expected 30 km per second motion of the earth in its supposed annual orbit around the sun. I invite your

attention to the famous Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, which directly led to Einstein's theory of

Relativity. As far as your assertion of the universe being "too massive" you are simply wrong. Basic physics will

disclose that no matter how much mass exists, it will rotate around the center of mass (barycenter); and this center of

mass will be motionless no matter how much mass is revolving around it. This principle can be observed in everyday

life by simply observing the behavior of a gyroscope. As for your quite correct observation that the relative velocity of

objects at a certain radius from Earth would exceed the speed of light, you must understand that Einstein's Relativity

establishes "C" (or the speed of light) as a limit only in vacuum; and only in the absence of a gravitational field. It is

quite consistent with General Relativity for objects to appear to move at a velocity greater then "C" when a sufficiently

strong gravitational field is present. Also - and this is crucial - even Big Bang Theory allows stars to greatly exceed

"C" when seen from Earth. This apparent contradiction is explained in Big Bang Theory by recourse to the notion that

"space" itself is somehow "expanding" faster than "C" and carrying the stars along with it. I leave it to you to judge the

plausibility of that explanation. But it is the case that in the Geocentric model it is not the stars, but rather the

electron-positron lattice, which is moving faster than "C" and likewise carrying the stars along with it. Take your

pick, physics can accommodate either model.

oh NO s , meisa has been trumped by a smart creationist. lol. not really. the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vague

term, it may be explosion or implosion. the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about in

TERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space. things have only been THEORISED to

move faster than light in gravity field. however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending in

space itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space. also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating than

every galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in

their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.

2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion

light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten

trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much

much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend. it is the EARTH rotating

not the entire universe around it . furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities and

distances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}

that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity. yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. if

there were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human

comprehension. furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen. if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.

your whole hypothesis from top to bottom is ridiculous here. and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction.

you have not replied to this. also, einstien was WRONG in that specific citation about the ether as he was wrong when he said "god does not play with dice" concerning the theory of quantum mechanics. you shud realise that a lot of time has passed since the days of einstien. reletivity took away the concept of absolute space and absolute time, hence, no ether. the idea of ether, as traditionally percieved has been debunked at the basic level.

on more point i forgot to add in the above quoted reply was the fact that to exactly compensate for the faster than light velocities, you wud need such precise MOVING points of super gravity placed numerously and exactly in the places mentioned for the stars that physics itself wud disprove such a dynamic combination forever working for all obects in space. it wud be like saying, that god makes everything happen in the world but when infact you try to observe what is happening, he immedietly changes the arrangement of things as to make it look like physical forces were resoinsible for it and then changes it back when you rent looking.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If you accept Relativity, you cannot claim Heliocentrism. Perhaps this fact has not sunk in yet among some. I encourage you to read my first sentence ten times very slowly until it does. I, on the other hand am defending Geocentrism. Since the defenders of Heliocentrism here accept relativity; they suffer from a terrible, apparently unrecognized logical contradiction in their world view. I suffer from no such contradiction, since I claim that there is both a "preferred reference frame" and a center of the universe, and that both of those are exactly the same thing, Earth. Every single argument advanced so far to prove the motion of the Earth has been thoroughly demonstrated not to do so. On your point of Newtonian mechanics, you mention mass; let me point out that the less massive heavenly body will not always revolve around the most massive one, This center of mass is not necessarily the most massive object, but the center at which the combined masses "balance out". You have no point here.

But i do have a point.

The sun is vastly more massive than every other body in the solar system, and so its centre is nearly at the centre of mass of the solar system and nearly stationary with respect to it, but not quite. Jupiter and the other planets makes it wobble a little in its place. So heliocentrism, within the context of the solar system, can be seen as a close approximation to the Newtonian case.

Science pick the sun as their "preferred reference frame" within the solar system and as the center of the solar system (not the universe) because of the law of gravity, not because of some arbitrary whim. Its more believable than some cockammie theory from an outdated 2000 year old book saying that the earth remains stationary and everything else revolves around it . . . . for no reason, other than some unexplained supernatural power.

Hell even your fellow crackpot creationist thinks that geocentrism is bad.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

"While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists."

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2002/pdf/1728.pdf

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004JE002250.shtml

you also state yourself that the coriolis effect is observed "if a body is rotating" and mars rotates roughly the same speed as the earth...40 minutes more if i remember

Originally posted by leonheartmm
oh NO s , meisa has been trumped by a smart creationist. lol. not really. the speed of SPACE EXPANSION is a vague

term, it may be explosion or implosion. the argument doesnt hold because expansion is only really talked about in

TERMS of space. the phenomenon described by me takes place INSIDE space. things have only been THEORISED to

move faster than light in gravity field. however, do consider, thet it may not really happen as any real bending in

space itself wont matter to observers actually INSIDE this very space. also, simply put, if the earth is not rotating than

every galaxy cluster/nebula/quaysar and every other stellar object even billions of light years away is rotating in

their orbit every 24 hours. now do the math, circumference = 2 pi x radius.

2 pi is around 6.2 and radius is say 1 billion light years. so the circumfernce{distance travelled in a day is 6.2 billion

light years. {it wud take light in a vacume 6.2 billion light years to travel this distance. 1 light year is around ten

trillion kilometres i think} and this celestial body travels this distance in only 24 hours. that is mcuh much much

much faster than the speed of light. so reletivity actually proves you wrong here my friend. it is the EARTH rotating

not the entire universe around it . furthermore, if you wanna talk about gravitic field of such high intensities and

distances. than you have to assume{through tthe uniform orbits of all celestial bodies as u say, orbitting the earth}

that the earth is the point cetre of this gravity. yet no such gravitic field is noticed around this region specifically. if

there were, it wud be the single most massive blackhole is existance with an even horizon beyond human

comprehension. furthermore, no such gravitic field which wud indicate the space stretch allowing for such high speed motion is ever detected in the areas of space where these objects are seen. if indeed there were, light wud be sufficiently bended or lensed or red shifted for physycists to notice a considerable anomoly{ofcourse at the speeds we are talking anout, the gravitic field wuld be so strong infact that there wud be near zero probability of photons to escape from it, since it wud lie at almost the edge of the even horizons of super blackholes.

your whole hypothesis from top to bottom is ridiculous here. and its odd for sum perosn who can quote such extensive knowledge of physics to be unable to understand this contradiction.

I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to you yet. I am very busy and am the only person defending Geocentrism on this thread. I will try to get you a response in a timely manner. Until then, thanks for waiting.

Originally posted by Templares
But i do have a point.

The sun is vastly more massive than every other body in the solar system, and so its centre is nearly at the centre of mass of the solar system and nearly stationary with respect to it, but not quite. Jupiter and the other planets makes it wobble a little in its place. So heliocentrism, within the context of the solar system, can be seen as a close approximation to the Newtonian case.

Science pick the sun as their "preferred reference frame" within the solar system and as the center of the solar system (not the universe) because of the law of gravity, not because of some arbitrary whim. Its more believable than some cockammie theory from an outdated 2000 year old book saying that the earth remains stationary and everything else revolves around it . . . . for no reason, other than some unexplained supernatural power.

Hell even your fellow crackpot creationist thinks that geocentrism is bad.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/geocentrism.asp

"While the intentions of the geocentrists are good, they offer a very easy target of criticism for our critics. We should establish some distance between the mainstream creation movement and the geocentrists."

geocentrism doesnt really exist anymore except in the history books. transfinitism seems to be the only one in the world who thinks this way

Originally posted by Transfinitum
I am sorry that I have not been able to respond to you yet. I am very busy and am the only person defending Geocentrism on this thread. I will try to get you a response in a timely manner. Until then, thanks for waiting.

Do you also believe the world is flat and sitting on a large tortuous?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
geocentrism doesnt really exist anymore except in the history books. transfinitism seems to be the only one in the world who thinks this way

Clearly everyone in the world but him is crazy.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
god i wish digi would post.....

Even atheists pray to somebody!

Originally posted by Quark_666
Even atheists pray to somebody!

touche. However in my case it is Chuck Norris who i worship not digi

Originally posted by Quark_666
Even atheists pray to somebody!

Why would they be praying?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Even atheists pray to somebody!

A devout atheist would not pray to anyone.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
touche. However in my case it is Chuck Norris who i worship not digi

Yeah, I heard what he did to the Virgin Islands

Originally posted by Quark_666
Yeah, I heard what he did to the Virgin Islands

Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his father did

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Why would they be praying?

To make digi post, so he could squash the silly idea of God's existence. Weren't you listening?

Originally posted by Quark_666
To make digi post, so he could squash the silly idea of God's existence. Weren't you listening?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his father did

Did you hear about Chuck Norris suing myspace for taking the name of what he calls everything around you?

Myspace would crumple up and die before his eyes if he considered that!

Originally posted by Quark_666
Did you hear about Chuck Norris suing myspace for taking the name of what he calls everything around you?

Myspace would crumple up and die before his eyes if he considered that!

if Chuck Norris really cared, he woulda roundhouse kicked tom before he was born.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
touche. However in my case it is Chuck Norris who i worship not digi

Isn't that dangerous?

Originally posted by Quark_666
Isn't that dangerous?

if you worship Chuck you have a chance at being spared, besides do you know what happens to people that he dislikes?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his father did

Would an atheist believe in Chuck Norris?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Would an atheist believe in Chuck Norris?

of course

So when atheists refer to a "higher power..." now I know what they mean!

oh yea, more points. why is it that the sideways velocity needed with respect to the earth of sattelites is REDUCED when they are launched from the equater into space if indeed the earth is not spiining around its own axis and the world is spinning around the earth? most shuttle launch sites are near the equater for this reason. furthermore, why is the weight of people actually reduced by about 1/25th or sumthing along with all things at the equater due to centrifugal affect of the earth spnning INSIDE the earth's own gravitational field{so the reference here is the earth itself and not the universe} if indeed the earth is stationary and the universe is moving around the earth????????? i think this very clearly states the case against geocentrism. reletivity is not really always applicable on bodies spinning around their own axis{which the earth can not according to the geocentric view wheere only the universe moves}

if chuck norris was really that powerful, he wud have gone back in time and waxed off all the hair he showed in his fight scene against bruce lee in return of the dragon.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if chuck norris was really that powerful, he wud have gone back in time and waxed off all the hair he showed in his fight scene against bruce lee in return of the dragon.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if you worship Chuck you have a chance at being spared

Originally posted by leonheartmm
if chuck norris was really that powerful, he wud have gone back in time and waxed off all the hair he showed in his fight scene against bruce lee in return of the dragon.

why would he wax off the hair??? he's not a girl, he's the mannliest man of all

lol, and he kicks Mountain Dew actors to the curb

We've gotta have a Chuck Norris thread. We've just gotta have a Chuck Norris thread.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
why would he wax off the hair??? he's not a girl, he's the mannliest man of all

He's so manly in fact that he can't wax off his hair. It just instantly grows back.

Originally posted by Quark_666
We've gotta have a Chuck Norris thread. We've just gotta have a Chuck Norris thread.

started a church of Chuck Norris thread, the mods closed it. they just dont wanna hear his divine name. i shall remake it!!!

Originally posted by chickenlover98
started a church of Chuck Norris thread, the mods closed it. they just dont wanna hear his divine name. i shall remake it!!!

All hail to thee our lord Chuck Norris!!!! May his blessings rain down on the true believers as he smites his foes with a single glance.

Originally posted by spadoinkle
All hail to thee our lord Chuck Norris!!!! May his blessings rain down on the true believers as he smites his foes with a single glance.

they closed it again. mod bastards(not really, just wish you would accept Chuck Norris as your lord and master )

lol Chuck Norris justed threw them into a trash can halfway across the world!

GOOD JOB CHUCK

the geocentric defender has left the thread. enter Chuck Norris, so that we might behold your glory

I suppose it wouldn't be worth it now to post that geocentrism violates special relativity.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I suppose it wouldn't be worth it now to post that geocentrism violates special relativity.
i dunno, hopefully transfinitism will return to make laugh even harder

indeed

Your understanding of this might be vague. This is shown by your claim that space "might be expanding or imploding". Wrong. Standard Model cosmology insists that the Universe is expanding. There is no evidence whatever that it is imploding. If you claim that redshift is a function of recessionary velocity and distance, then observational evidence requires to assert that space itself is expanding. Think about it. If everywhere we look we see redshifts, then EITHER:

1. Redshift is NOT exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity (Halton Arp makes an extremely persuasive case for this option, see ) http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

2. The Earth is at the center of an expanding Universe, OR

3. The Universe is expanding so rapidly that its expansion exceeds the speed of light.

Take your pick.

If you pick #1 or #2, you will be sneered at by folks who imagine that scientific truthfulness is somehow determined by majority vote.

But that, obviously, does nothing whatever to prove #3.

A moment's reflection will serve to establish that every single scientific discovery in all of human history began life as a "crazy insane nutcase theory" that every scientist in the world rejected- except one.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The observed redshifts of the most distance objects cannot be squared with the limit of the speed of light. Period. Therefore, you must either, with Arp, reject the notion that redshift equals velocity, or else you must say that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and carrying the objects along with it.

If you accept redshift=velocity, then you have no basis at all to object to superluminal velocities of objects carried along by "space" (whatever that might be).

Just as things are only THEORIZED to be unable to move faster than light in a vacuum.


But you must realize that space is only THEORIZED to "bend". What is "bending", if space is truly a vacuum? If space is not a vacuum, then you have an ether. In either case, not a shred of evidence has yet been put forward to falsify the geocentric hypothesis.


You are, again, simply wrong. Relativity explicity insists that objects can exceed to any numerical value whatsoever the velocity of light in the presence of gravitational fields.

From "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", William Geraint Vaughan Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p.460 (the author was senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University):

"Relative to the stationary roundabout" (NOTE: Earth in the geocentric system) "the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction....that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than "c" . However, the restriction u < c =3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General Theory, it is possible to to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.....If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either matierial bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."


You have no proof for this position whatsoever, and if you insist upon it, then you simultaneously insist that General Relativity is wrong. You must now prove both propositions. Good luck.

Sorry, wrong again. It is the center of MASS, not the center of GRAVITY, that the Earth occupies in the geocentric Universe. It is extremely important to learn the difference. The gyroscope does not rotate around the center of gravity, obviously, but instead the center of mass.


See above. You have unfortunately become confused as to the difference between center of mass and center of gravity.


It is not gravity which expands space. Gravity is a function of matter, which obviously does not exist outside of space. Therefore it is not gravity which is expanding space in the Standard Theory.


But you see this is precisely the problem for your team. We DO observe redshifts, at distances which are assumed to be so great, that the objects must be moving greater than the speed of light. In order to account for this observation, the current consensus is required to borrow a page from the "Big Bang" creation myth, where "inflation" allows space to expand to the volume of the solar system in less than a second. This, obviously, invloves a massive violation of the speed of light, but is accepted anyway, with the argument that "space" is somehow exempt from the constraint.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend. If you guys can claim motion of matter greater than "c", you certainly have no grounds at all to insist that geocentrism can't.

I have shown that the only contradiction here, is your defense of a Standard Theory which insists that objects can and do move faster than the speed of light, while simultaneously calling me "ridiculous" for agreeing with you. That is indeed a contradiction, but it is one which affects your position, not mine.
Fascinating. So some anonymous dude in a chat room decides he will tell us when Einstein is right and when Einstein is wrong, without being bothered with the pesky details of demonstrating just how and on what evidence he makes these claims.

You are quite wrong here. Einstein DID take away the concept of the ether, in Special Relativity. He was required to put it back, in the LATER General Theory, as he himself specifically told you in the quote I provided.

Subsequent discoveries have completely discredited the notion of a "vacuum" in space. All mainstream physicists now accept the argument given by Stephen Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time":

"he uncertainty principle means that even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles.......if empty space were really completely empty- it would mean that all fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero." (pp 122-123)

In direct contradiction to your assertion, the notion of a "vacuum" is what has been debunked, and the "ether" is very much alive, whether one calls it a
"quantum space-time foam", or a "Dirac sea", it is still precisely what the ether has always been- the physical structure filling all of space.

"Compensate" for the velocities? What are you trying to say here? There is no "compensation" required. The theory itself allows velocities of any value whatever in the presence of gravitational fields, and the existence of the ether allows the actual "work" of superluminal velocities to take place within the rotation of "space " (ether), in the geocentric system, or the "expansion of space" (ether) in General Relativity.

Physics can accomodate both models.


Sorry, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The solar system is 'flat' enough that Special Relativity applies. A geocentric universe, and consequently geocentric solar system, requires that a body as close as Pluto have constant FTL motion (varying FTL motion due to it's orbit).

And as much as you jibber jabber about General Relativity, in so far as I've read of, it doesn't support a geocentric universe at all, it supports an acentric universe - as any frame of reference can be taken and the equations of motion in the universe will still be accurate.

But have fun with your the Universe revolves around you crackpottery - I have no intention of trying to sway your warped world view.

god damn this is actually getting good

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
And as much as you jibber jabber about General Relativity, in so far as I've read of, it doesn't support a geocentric universe at all,

The ultimate desecration of science...when people have a theory that doesn't make any sense to anybody including themselves, they resort to quantum physics.

Originally posted by Quark_666
The ultimate desecration of science...when people have a theory that doesn't make any sense to anybody including themselves, they resort to quantum physics.

can you quantify that???

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Your understanding of this might be vague. This is shown by your claim that space "might be expanding or imploding". Wrong. Standard Model cosmology insists that the Universe is expanding. There is no evidence whatever that it is imploding. If you claim that redshift is a function of recessionary velocity and distance, then observational evidence requires to assert that space itself is expanding. Think about it. If everywhere we look we see redshifts, then EITHER:

1. Redshift is NOT exclusively an indication of recessionary velocity (Halton Arp makes an extremely persuasive case for this option, see ) http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

2. The Earth is at the center of an expanding Universe, OR

3. The Universe is expanding so rapidly that its expansion exceeds the speed of light.

Take your pick.

If you pick #1 or #2, you will be sneered at by folks who imagine that scientific truthfulness is somehow determined by majority vote.

But that, obviously, does nothing whatever to prove #3.

A moment's reflection will serve to establish that every single scientific discovery in all of human history began life as a "crazy insane nutcase theory" that every scientist in the world rejected- except one.

Sorry, but you are simply wrong. The observed redshifts of the most distance objects cannot be squared with the limit of the speed of light. Period. Therefore, you must either, with Arp, reject the notion that redshift equals velocity, or else you must say that space is expanding faster than the speed of light and carrying the objects along with it.

If you accept redshift=velocity, then you have no basis at all to object to superluminal velocities of objects carried along by "space" (whatever that might be).

Just as things are only THEORIZED to be unable to move faster than light in a vacuum.


But you must realize that space is only THEORIZED to "bend". What is "bending", if space is truly a vacuum? If space is not a vacuum, then you have an ether. In either case, not a shred of evidence has yet been put forward to falsify the geocentric hypothesis.


You are, again, simply wrong. Relativity explicity insists that objects can exceed to any numerical value whatsoever the velocity of light in the presence of gravitational fields.

From "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity", William Geraint Vaughan Rosser, London, Butterworths, 1964, p.460 (the author was senior lecturer in Physics at Exeter University):

"Relative to the stationary roundabout" (NOTE: Earth in the geocentric system) "the distant stars would have...linear velocities exceeding 3 x 10^8 m/sec, the terrestrial value of the velocity of light. At first sight this appears to be a contradiction....that the velocities of all material bodies must be less than "c" . However, the restriction u < c =3 x 10^8 m/sec is restricted to the theory of Special Relativity. According to the General Theory, it is possible to to choose local reference frames in which, over a limited volume of space, there is no gravitational field, and relative to such a reference frame the velocity of light is equal to c.....If gravitational fields are present the velocities of either matierial bodies or of light can assume any numerical value depending on the strength of the gravitational field."


You have no proof for this position whatsoever, and if you insist upon it, then you simultaneously insist that General Relativity is wrong. You must now prove both propositions. Good luck.

Sorry, wrong again. It is the center of MASS, not the center of GRAVITY, that the Earth occupies in the geocentric Universe. It is extremely important to learn the difference. The gyroscope does not rotate around the center of gravity, obviously, but instead the center of mass.


See above. You have unfortunately become confused as to the difference between center of mass and center of gravity.


It is not gravity which expands space. Gravity is a function of matter, which obviously does not exist outside of space. Therefore it is not gravity which is expanding space in the Standard Theory.


But you see this is precisely the problem for your team. We DO observe redshifts, at distances which are assumed to be so great, that the objects must be moving greater than the speed of light. In order to account for this observation, the current consensus is required to borrow a page from the "Big Bang" creation myth, where "inflation" allows space to expand to the volume of the solar system in less than a second. This, obviously, invloves a massive violation of the speed of light, but is accepted anyway, with the argument that "space" is somehow exempt from the constraint.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend. If you guys can claim motion of matter greater than "c", you certainly have no grounds at all to insist that geocentrism can't.

I have shown that the only contradiction here, is your defense of a Standard Theory which insists that objects can and do move faster than the speed of light, while simultaneously calling me "ridiculous" for agreeing with you. That is indeed a contradiction, but it is one which affects your position, not mine.
Fascinating. So some anonymous dude in a chat room decides he will tell us when Einstein is right and when Einstein is wrong, without being bothered with the pesky details of demonstrating just how and on what evidence he makes these claims.

You are quite wrong here. Einstein DID take away the concept of the ether, in Special Relativity. He was required to put it back, in the LATER General Theory, as he himself specifically told you in the quote I provided.

Subsequent discoveries have completely discredited the notion of a "vacuum" in space. All mainstream physicists now accept the argument given by Stephen Hawking in "A Briefer History of Time":

"he uncertainty principle means that even "empty" space is filled with pairs of virtual particles and antiparticles.......if empty space were really completely empty- it would mean that all fields, such as the gravitational and electromagnetic fields, would have to be exactly zero." (pp 122-123)

In direct contradiction to your assertion, the notion of a "vacuum" is what has been debunked, and the "ether" is very much alive, whether one calls it a
"quantum space-time foam", or a "Dirac sea", it is still precisely what the ether has always been- the physical structure filling all of space. SHUT UP. ITS BEEN PROVEN, TRANSFINITUM! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!

Originally posted by theburningSKULL
SHUT UP. ITS BEEN PROVEN, TRANSFINITUM! WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS!

thanks for adding something meaning full. oh wait.....

Please do explain as to why a more massive sun would orbit the Earth, according to your crock geocentric view of the solar system.

Here, after you've convinced everyone that the universe revolves around the Earth, you can convince us that the Earth is also flat.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/

Originally posted by Templares
Please do explain as to why a more massive sun would orbit the Earth, according to your crock geocentric view of the solar system.
Is this serious? I have shown in multiple posts that it is not always the less massive body revolving around the more massive one. Read any of my above posts keyword, barycenter.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is this serious? I have shown in multiple posts that it is not always the less massive body revolving around the more massive one. Read any of my above posts keyword, barycenter.

Well, that does not agree with Newtonian Laws of Gravity. That means your ideas are WRONG!.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here, after you've convinced everyone that the universe revolves around the Earth, you can convince us that the Earth is also flat.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/
A flat Earth is not in the Geocentric model (I personally beleive the Earth is round). You try to make me seem like some crazy person when in reality, I have more evidence for my claims than you do.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
A flat Earth is not in the Geocentric model (I personally beleive the Earth is round). You try to make me seem like some crazy person when in reality, I have more evidence for my claims than you do.

He is not trying to make it seem like you are crazy, you have already done that.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
A flat Earth is not in the Geocentric model (I personally beleive the Earth is round). You try to make me seem like some crazy person when in reality, I have more evidence for my claims than you do.

You do a perfect job of making yourself seem like some "crazy" person with your "the universe revolves around the Earth" rants, I really can't take the credit. I haven't made any claims, but the other posters have destroyed all your points.

untrue, it states that the universe is expanding from OUR POINT OF VIEW. the actual space can either be increasing or simply, the mass/force particles inside the universes, decreasing in size. basic reletivity. furthermore, most theorised interactions of the beginning of universes from singularities and string interactions state that the universe creates its own space{which is why strings dont expand inside the space of other universes} which means IMPLODE not EXPLODE. it has been said thousands of times that the big bang in not an explosion in the traditional sence as it does not expand IN SPACE. u cud just as well say that it is an infinitely small point{0 distances inside it} which implodes and creates negetive space from a point of view of an outside observer.
red shifts are merely a functions of photons working agains expansion from THEIR POINT OF VIEW. it is reletive, it can be said to be exploding or imploding. the expansion of space may indeed exceed the speed of light, but at its basis, speed =distance/time. space/time does not expand IN already created space, so you cant really call that SPEED of expansion, just reletive speed of expansion. the speed of light limit exists only for objects already INSIDE space. the earth is not at the centre of the expanding universe, all things are moving away from all other things, not specifically away from the earth as a centre, that is the vastly accepted model in science right now.

as for the last claim, its simply wrong.



arguing aimlessly again. you dont understand what i am saying. lets say the universe has an event horizon which is the limit of space-time fabric{beyong which u can either not travel or will just be transported back to another point inside the fabric} and the universe is EXPANDING. now, what exactly does EXPANDING imply? it means spreading in SPACE. however, defined space is already all INSIDE this event horizon, so how can IT be expanding??? the answer is rather simple, either contents inside it are contracting, OR it is expanding in higher dimensions. either way, it can not be called EXPANSION in the regular sense nor can you compare this phenomenon of expansion{and hence its SPEED which also allows travel in DEFINED SPACE} with the speed of things already INSIDE this space{i.e all force carrying particles and existing particles of spins which give them mass qualities} . INSIDE this space nothing can go beyond lightspeed, no information can be transmitted at or beyond lightspeed. it has never been observed and has only been hypothesised in super gravitational fields. which again is open for critique as it can be noticed that this sort of SUPER LUMINAL SPEED will only be observed by beings outside the actual fabric of 3d space but may not be observed for beings which are part of the fabric.



sorry, i meant HYPOTHESISED. the above theory though has always been proven by observations and never disproven. not to mention that practical proof is obtained again and again by experiments and in reletavistic applications like fission and fusion.



lmao, you post false claims. almost EVREY1 in the scientific community disagrees with the geocentric model, often quoting it as the prime example of relegious dogmatism being disproven by science. fabrics and ether are not the same. bending has little to do with UNMOVEABLE FRAMES OF REFERENCE{which is the definition of ether} . space is context and dimensions. it exists seperately and bends seperately for seperate observers. it is not uniform for observers with different velocities, hence, becoming a reletive as opposed to ultimate frame of reference. cant beleive u missed that in all your higher physics studies. sumthing as simple as a brief history of time by stephen hawkins might have done the trick of explaining to even a simple laman how the ether was taken out by einstien.



yes yes yes, i have already heard your insinuation about gravitic fields present. let me debunk your wishful thinking here. {you are obviously taking very specfic and limited phrases and arguments to try and make a ridiculous model. remeber, even the devil can quote selectively from scriptures. basically, what i am saying is, you dont even close to understand the thing as a whole and it is showing} {and let me also say that unknown colledge professors which are writing ways to relevistically rationalise arguments for geocentrism in the early 60s is cause in itself for scepticism} . for what are suggesting to hold true{even though the observed faster than light dragging of objects in super strong gravity fields is only a hypothesis} there would have to be a very very specific arrangement of gravitic fields at any given time in a very complex way to compensate for the varying velocities and orbits of all bodies in the universe around the earth. furthermore, these gravitational anomolies{because they have to specifically cater to each celestial body and also not influence gravitically, all the other billions of celestial bodies around } would also have to MOVE WITH each individual celestial body at exactly the same beyond lightspeed speed that the object is supposed to posess {which is impossible as that in itself wud require another gravitic field anomoly tailor made for the initial anomoly and the second anomoly would also require a third anomoly to keep up with the second anomoly and it wud turn into eternal regression. and this isnt even counting that the anomoly is a blackhole, which it really shud be seeing as to the high field strengths required. im sure you understand the implications of DRAGGING blackholes at post luminous velocities}. which is impossible, and the chances of it again not affecting the orbit of other anomolies or celestial objects are non existant. as there is o such thing as GRAVITATIONAL SHIELDING and you cant have unidirectional gravity either. basically, you require trancending fingers of god to accomplish what you naively suggested in the above example. {each guiding each celestial body}. another thing is that such high numbers of anomolies would cause serious bending of space time an screw up any and all observations of incoming light from the universe to the point that the sky wud look like a trick mirror and nothing wud be able to be discerned about the properties of the universe, assuming any light can escape these fields to begin with. i suppose then that no light from the universe wud ever reach earth.

fallacy. you are providing false choices. general reletivity proves your argument wrong but u post shady hypothesis which are again proven wrong. the scenarios you post are completely alien and inconcistant. i dont have to prove general reletivity wrong at all, you just have to look at the above argument.



lmao, you are intentionally putting words in my mouth and trying to make it look like i was confused about the two. i was not, and again, it has nuthing to do with what i was saying. i was merely commenting on the strength of gravitic fields needed to keep such motion in place reletive to us. please remind me again, how strong the gravitic field strength must be for bodies to attain speeds around 30458333333 times that of the speed of light{for celestial bodies a couple of billion lightyears away} . then explain to me the entropy of the black holes and the size of the blackholes required to produce such fields{remember this is for just one celestial body} and also explain to me the probability, with the mass distribution of galaxies and even the universe as a whole{which again isnt uniform} around it how it is possible that it doesnt affect mass other than the single thing its supposed to be affecting. also tell me the mechanics of how such gravity field inducing objectis will be able to constantly be around the object and retain the same speed they do and at the same time, curve in their orbit to follow the geocentric orbit of the mass being observed from the eartha nd what kind of sensitive equilibrium wid be required for them to keep the object almost on their event horizon but not swallow it up inside them. i think ull come to come ridiculous answers.



now THIS just blatantly proves that you know very little about the subject that you are presuming to be an expert at. lol. space is not EXPANDING in any traditional way as i explained before. it expands in higher dimension and the expansion is only reletive to us. nuthing INSIDE space can travel beyond lightspeed. the speed restriction is for the fabric OF space, not SPACE ITSELF. space exists differently for different observers and hence is not an ultimate refernce frame. for example, to us a photon is moving with the speed of light in a vacume. in space and time. but for the photon, it and the world around it has forever stopped at one point in time. its the same photon but the things around it and the dimensions are vastly different from the point of view of the observer. which is why muons decay so quickly, the space time fabric is different for them at such high speeds. and it isnt accepted ANYWAY, you just do no understand that they are two seperate arguments with no corellation. the way you are trying to argue is a way a laman wud try to argue that einstien proved that energy is eternal, therefore, the human conciousness and mental energies must always exists, hence the soul being immortal.



objects and space are vastly different things. contradiction remains as the two have no corellation here. objects exist INSIDE space. speed =distance{IN space/time} . how can u argue the same for space expansion when u dont even know what space expands IN?


widely quoted fact that einstied didnt agree with heisenberg's principle and always beleived that the universe was a constant and predictable system{god does not play with dice}. he was an ardent opposer of quantum theory and didnt think it was right. well gues what, every other scientist after him admitted that einstien was wrong on the account{and unreasoneable as his own work on black body radiation and photoelectron emission led to the theory being formulated} and quantum theory is currently the most well established fundamental theory. and there has NEVER been an observation contradicting the expected outcome of the theory.



wrong, he put a cosmological constant later on to explain the expanding universe and later called it "the greatest blunder of his life". u forgot both those. the conept of an ultimate spacial or time frame{ether} was completely blasted away after reletivity was established, this is known fact.

only problem is, those things are not ethers. you dont know the definition of ether. it is a uniform REFERENCE frame against which all thing move in space and time. and that has been debunked. what you are describing are theories which try to explain what space is. i dont htink i ever said that space was empty, i just said that things inside space are different from space itself and different rules apply.



lmao, your so inconsistant. first u say that gravity is a function of mass. then you say that gravitic fields are responsible for the FTL speed movement of celestial bodies in geocentric orbits, then when i ask you to explain where these fields are emenating from{mass as i see it} to exactly compensate enough space/time warp to contribute to the beyond light velocity, you are unable to provide an answer and vaguely hint that sumhow the ETHER{which coincidentiallty has again changed inside your definition, from quantum space time foam to again an ultimate frame of reference which can also influence the motiion of bodies inside it} is responsible for it and not gravitic fields. god ur so confused. furthermore, the expansion of SPACE {even from the point of view of earrth which u define as the centr of the universe} takes place at 90 degrees to the velocity of the objects in geocentric orbits, and can hence have no components which actually ADDS to the velocity of the object as it ORBITS and tries to finish it in 24 hours at speeds beyond that of light. that would require fields at a tangent to the geocentric orbits and the expansion of space is in the complete other direction.

furthermore, you have not elaborated on the points given about centrifugal affect of earth's rotation{RELETIVE TO EARTH ITSELF so there is no room here for you saying that it just seems that way from sum other point} which makes things wiegh less at the equaters. surely, this is evidence for earth rotating around its axis and not the universe. cause in the later cases, there wud be no reduction in wieght as there wud be no centrifuge.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
Is this serious? I have shown in multiple posts that it is not always the less massive body revolving around the more massive one. Read any of my above posts keyword, barycenter.

Oh im well aware of barycenter (i use the term center of mass in my previous post). Everything in the solar system including the sun, revolves around the solar system's barycenter. This barycenter is on or near the sun because the sun contains the bulk of the solar system's mass. The sun is nearly stationary (wobbles in its place) relative to the barcenter of the solar system.


But thats not what i want to know.

What i want to know is what mechanism COMPELS a more massive sun to orbit (and not just wobble in its place like in the heliocentric theory) a less massive earth, according to your retarded geocentric theory? It certainly isnt gravity because it is subject to an object's mass.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
thanks for adding something meaning full. oh wait..... ...don't be a ****...

Wheres Transfinitum? I really want to read his reply. Its bound to be interesting.

Originally posted by spadoinkle
Wheres Transfinitum? I really want to read his reply. Its bound to be interesting.

preparing his counter argument

Hi all. I'm new at this game and consider myself 'blog illeritate'. I have to try this first before I get down to business.

James

Great, it worked, now down to some real debate on this geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Having read some of the stuff on this subject I see it could go on till the end of the world. Let me now ask for some feedback. Am I engaging Catholics or am I among nominal Catholics, or are some of you Agnostics in reality but logged on to have some fun?

Let me introduce myself. I am a 65 year young Irish Catholic. I probably know more about this subject than anyone on earth. This is my second attempt to debate this the most important subject in Catholicism. The first was on a forum belonging to an Fr K that I read about last weekend in the English paper Catholic Standard. I thought these sites were places where one can call a spade a spade and that censorship was applied only in extreme cases of profanity, slander and things like that. As it happened, after my second reply was logged in it never appeared and the following day the subject itself disappeared. The reason for this is that this subject (geocentricism) is the key to the crisis in Catholicism on earth, but the TRUTH of it is too HOT to be allowed debate on Fr K's site. Anyone familiar with the La Sapienza University affair? It was about geocentricism and it was so HOT that Pope Benedict XVI couldn't take the criticism so he cancelled his visit to the College, and this a pope who went to Turkey and possible suicide bombers.

So, have I logged in to another censored site or shall we talk a bit about geocentricism and what it really means, in spite of some of the ignorant clowns who think they know better than the Churchmen of sixteen centuries?

Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Great, it worked, now down to some real debate on this geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Having read some of the stuff on this subject I see it could go on till the end of the world. Let me now ask for some feedback. Am I engaging Catholics or am I among nominal Catholics, or are some of you Agnostics in reality but logged on to have some fun?

Let me introduce myself. I am a 65 year young Irish Catholic. I probably know more about this subject than anyone on earth. This is my second attempt to debate this the most important subject in Catholicism. The first was on a forum belonging to an Fr K that I read about last weekend in the English paper Catholic Standard. I thought these sites were places where one can call a spade a spade and that censorship was applied only in extreme cases of profanity, slander and things like that. As it happened, after my second reply was logged in it never appeared and the following day the subject itself disappeared. The reason for this is that this subject (geocentricism) is the key to the crisis in Catholicism on earth, but the TRUTH of it is too HOT to be allowed debate on Fr K's site. Anyone familiar with the La Sapienza University affair? It was about geocentricism and it was so HOT that Pope Benedict XVI couldn't take the criticism so he cancelled his visit to the College, and this a pope who went to Turkey and possible suicide bombers.

So, have I logged in to another censored site or shall we talk a bit about geocentricism and what it really means, in spite of some of the ignorant clowns who think they know better than the Churchmen of sixteen centuries?

So, what is your point of view?

Originally posted by james o'hanlon
Great, it worked, now down to some real debate on this geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Having read some of the stuff on this subject I see it could go on till the end of the world. Let me now ask for some feedback. Am I engaging Catholics or am I among nominal Catholics, or are some of you Agnostics in reality but logged on to have some fun?

Let me introduce myself. I am a 65 year young Irish Catholic. I probably know more about this subject than anyone on earth. This is my second attempt to debate this the most important subject in Catholicism. The first was on a forum belonging to an Fr K that I read about last weekend in the English paper Catholic Standard. I thought these sites were places where one can call a spade a spade and that censorship was applied only in extreme cases of profanity, slander and things like that. As it happened, after my second reply was logged in it never appeared and the following day the subject itself disappeared. The reason for this is that this subject (geocentricism) is the key to the crisis in Catholicism on earth, but the TRUTH of it is too HOT to be allowed debate on Fr K's site. Anyone familiar with the La Sapienza University affair? It was about geocentricism and it was so HOT that Pope Benedict XVI couldn't take the criticism so he cancelled his visit to the College, and this a pope who went to Turkey and possible suicide bombers.

So, have I logged in to another censored site or shall we talk a bit about geocentricism and what it really means, in spite of some of the ignorant clowns who think they know better than the Churchmen of sixteen centuries? Convince us.