HIM: untrue, it states that the universe is expanding from OUR POINT OF VIEW.
>>>I wonder if it has occurred to you how absurd it is to allege expansion from anything OTHER than "our point of view". Once we depart from "our point of view", we are alleging occurrences for which, by definition, we can have no evidence. Alleged occurrences which, by definition, cannot be subjected to observational and experimental verification are objects of "faith", not of science.
As for expansion, it is impossible to put forth any evidence for it except the observed redshifts. The fact that the redshifts are seen everywhere we look, gives us evidence for three possible outcomes:
The Earth is at the center of a Universe receding from it in all directions.
The Universe is entirely homogeneous and isotropic, that is, it would look the same no matter where we viewed it from. OR:
The redshifts are not exclusively indicators of velocity.
This is now the third time I have posted this. In future, I will assume that any failure on your, or others, part to grasp these simple truths, will be indicative of a willful refusal to engage with simple logic.
As Ogden Nash once said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".
One of my expected outcomes from debates of this kind, is to demonstrate the essentially religious faith which the materialist has placed in assertions which, by definition, can never possibly be subjected to scientific demonstration.
We are about to get a very clear example of the deep and touching faith which the materialist places in non-scientific (because non-verifiable) assertions.
First, let's review:
1. I have shown that the Foucault pendulum argument does not disprove geocentrism.
2. I have shown that the speed of rotation argument does not disprove geocentrism
3. I have shown that the redshift argument does not disprove geocentrism.
No other arguments of a scientific nature have been advanced, but I would welcome any others. I will be happy to respond to them.
Unlike any of my opponents- even the best ones, the ones who have at least attempted to engage on the basis of scientific evidence- ALL of my refutations have been accompanied by specific, valid citations of the scientific literature. From this point forward, I would expect a similar courtesy; if you intend to assert a scientific disproof of geocentrism, please include an authoritative citation so that we can be sure we are not dealing with….ummm…how shall I put this…..wishful and/or confused thinking.
HIM:the actual space can either be increasing or simply, the mass/force particles inside the universes, decreasing in size. basic reletivity.
>>>Bunk. I now challenge you to post a citation from any scientific source whatever, which supports your absurd gibberish that "basic relativity" involves "force particles" which "can decrease in size" to explain redshifts as indicating an "imploding universe". HINT: You can't. STRIKE ONE.
HIM: 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}
>>>Who gives a bloody hoot about speculations involving entities (strings, "other universes"😉 never experimentally shown to exist outside of the feverish imaginations of folks trying frantically to come up with a fix for the embarrassing fact that General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics directly contradict each other in their basic assumptions of what constitutes space and particle interactions? I am not interested in your speculations. If you have some scientific proof, post it. Otherwise save it for your next Star Trek script.
HIM: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.
>>>Oh this is hilarious. So we have a Big Bang that EXPLODES (not IMPLODES) in NOT SPACE, and therefore this somehow means that SPACE (not NOT SPACE) IMPLODES not EXPLODES. If this were a stand up routine you would have me rolling on the floor. Since this is supposed to be an examination of scientific reasons why geocentrism cannot be true, your repeated appeals to science fiction are indicative only of the utter poverty of your critique. The absurdities get even more hilarious, though…..
HIM: u cud just as well say that it is an infinitely small point{0 distances inside it}
>>>Oh this is good. "No space inside it" means it is a "point". I guess this would be a point of NOT SPACE, since it has "no distance inside it"????
HIM:hich implodes and creates negetive space from a point of view of an outside observer.
>>>oh! oh! Oh! Better still, not merely NOT SPACE, but NEGATIVE SPACE, from the "point of view of an "OUTSIDE" (outside of what? The negative space? The positive space? The Not space? Or the infinitely small point that contains no distance?)
I think you should start your own Eastern Zen religion. Perhaps then somebody might takle this claptrap seriously.
I am uninterested in your sci fi, plus you can neither spell nor punctuate, which makes the already turgid reading even less rewarding.
If you have a cited, scientific argument, I will respond. In the meantime, it might make a pretty good script for the LSD-damaged.
Transfinitum; Please learn something about math. We can look at how the universe and then use math to calculate what it would look like from another point of view.
BTW
This statement was so stupid that I did not read any further.
HIM: untrue, it states that the universe is expanding from OUR POINT OF VIEW.>>>I wonder if it has occurred to you how absurd it is to allege expansion from anything OTHER than "our point of view". Once we depart from "our point of view", we are alleging occurrences for which, by definition, we can have no evidence. Alleged occurrences which, by definition, cannot be subjected to observational and experimental verification are objects of "faith", not of science.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
No other arguments of a scientific nature have been advanced, but I would welcome any others. I will be happy to respond to them.
So how would you explain mars' orbit, which has tendencies to move in a retrograde fashion at times?
Also, how would you explain the observation of the different phases of Venus? Namely a full phase?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Don't use big words like retrograde. 😆
lol the motion where Mars, for a short period of time, travels in the opposite direction of the stars and then later resumes.
Like So:
This is a motion that has purplexed geocentrist supporters, but the heliocentric model explains it quite nicely.
oh yea, more points. why is it that the sideways velocity needed with respect to the earth
>>Or with respect to the rotation of the medium into which the satellite is launched (theory of relativity insists that both are equally valid)….
***********************
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?
>>We would see this same effect if the distant rotating masses referred to to by Hans Thirring were, as his paper proposes, distributed predominantly along an axis perpendicular to the Earth's equator.
How many times must I keep repeating to you gentlemen- the Theory of Relativity has deprived you of ANY argument that states that motion "must" be restricted to one preferred reference frame. Therefore, before you post any more such arguments, first openly admit that you don't accept Relativity, and state upon what evidence you reject it, and what physical theory you propose to replace it with.
This is precisely what I have done.
****************************
most shuttle launch sites are near the equater for this reason.
>>Exactly. "This reason" being, (a), that the earth is rotating and its rotational velocity is greatest at the equator, or (b) the Universe is rotating around the Earth, with the greatest concentration of mass perpendicular to the Earth's equator. There is no physical experiment ever conducted which has been able to tell us which is which. If you accept General Relativity as true, then no such experiment would even be POSSIBLE, even in theory.
As a geocentrist, of course, I reject General Relativity, and therefore I believe that such an experiment IS possible. Perhaps at the appropriate time I might even share it with you.
But not until you learn the basics of Relativity theory, and the catastrophic destruction it wreaks upon each and all of your arguments.
****************************
>> 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}
Bunk. The Coriolis and centrifugal forces arise whether the Earth is rotating, or whether the Earth is stationary at the barycenter of mass of a rotating Universe. Einstein himself has already answered you specifically on this. I will repost his exact quote one more time. From now on, if you want to engage me, then go back and read my posts and do your homework. Otherwise you are a waste of my time.
EARLIER POST: 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 Coriolis (and, of course, the directly related centrifugal) force constitutes no proof whatever that the Earth is rotating.
*********************************
if indeed the earth is stationary and the universe is moving around the earth?????????
>>>You need to understand Einstein. ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE. THERE ARE NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAMES. Repeat that fifty times until you either (a) grasp it, or (b), decide to reject Einsteinian Relativity and come up with some other new form of physics.
Take your pick.
*************************************
i think this very clearly states the case against geocentrism.
>>We now see that instead, it very clearly states the case against you understanding the basic principles of Relativity.
*************************************
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}
>>>Again. You simply don't know what you are talking about. Special Relativity was incapable of explaining observed phenomena pertaining to rotating discs. General Relativity was formulated to deal, among other things, with this shortcoming.
Now, either you disagree with Einstein, and reject General Relativity, or else you simply don't grasp the following BASIC PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY:
ALL MOTIONS ARE RELATIVE. THERE ARE NO PREFERRED REFERENCE FRAMES.
If you think these two sentences through very carefully you will save yourself a lot of embarrassment trying to formulate arguments based on non-relative motion and preferred reference frames.