geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
It is wonderful for you that you have all of these websites to help you out. But, alas, I am not your jester; you cannot throw an essay that you did not write at me and expect me spend the time to reply. If I am to educate you on these matters, the least you could do is siphon out the scientific arguments from the "Geocentrists are crazy" rhetoric; as a sign of good will. If I am spending all this effort to educate you on this matter, the least you could do is that.

Sorry but college comes first before kmc.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Sorry but college comes first before kmc.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Except, of course, for that object at the precise barycenter not only of the solar system, but of the Universe. That object, of course, will not revolve around anything. Instead, everything in the Universe will revolve around it.

Oh please, are you telling me that this Object is our puny little Earth with its puny little gravitation is pulling the rest of the Universe to rotate around it? Thats just retardation. It breaks gravitational laws.

From our current understanding of cosmology mainly the Big Bang, the Universe DOES NOT rotate.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>>The barycenter of the Universe, not of the solar system, is at issue.

Please do point out where this massive object (or the massive object close to it) that serves as the barycenter of the Universe is found.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>This is an assertion for which you have no proof. In fact, most physicists reject this assertion, since we have evidence from a number of experiments of (take your pick)
A: A motion of the Solar system as a whole in the general direction of the constellation Drago (taken as a consequence of the rotation of the Solar system around a Galactic barycenter)

Or B: A motion of the ether against the Solar system as a whole, oriented along an axis perpendicular to the Drago system.

No experiment can presently distinguish between the two possibilities- although other evidence strongly suggests that (B) is the actual occurrence :-)

Oh its true, planets making stars like our sun wobble in its place is a by-product of Newton's third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite so and so. Anyway, astronomers today use the star's wobble to detect and measure the mass of the planet or planets orbiting around it and they have been successful. Im honestly surprised you dont know that.

The concept of the aether however is the one rejected by modern astronomers and physicists. Einstein was the one who did away its existence and put forth that light travels in a vacuum. Dont cling on to something obsolete and discredited like the aether.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> Centrifugal forces COMPEL the Sun to orbit the universal barycenter, obviously. Since the Sun is merely a tiny fraction of the universe's mass, it, along with every other object, will rotate about the universe's barycenter.

In the geocentric system, Earth is at that Universal barycenter, and the Sun, consequently, is COMPELLED to orbit around it, just like every other object in said Universe.

Centrifugal force needs to PIN the sun into something to hold it in place. Oh wait, let me guess youre thinking of the aether. I told you not to cling on to something obsolete and discredited. It would cloud your understanding on how things REALLY works.

Well the aether as conceived by classical physicist dont have the attributes to hold stellar and galactic objects in place. No mass, no rigidity, in fact the problem confronted by physicist back then is to detect the aether and making the damn thing react with something. Physicist even come up with inane explanations such as the "Universal conspiracy to hide the aether"-sh!t until Einstein stood up and said, "F*ck there is NO aether." Progress in the fields of physics increased exponentially afterwards.

Of course, creationsist could make baseless assumptions about it and/or twist, turn or transform the aether into something it is not originally conceived (ie. like interpreting the aether as quantum fluctuations) but then that would be dishonesty . . . . but then since when did that stop creationists?

And please do explain why arbitrarily and for no reason the Earth is the Universal barycenter? Assuming that a universal barycenter does exist, which is highly doubtful given the nature of the Big Bang, the earth is certainly NOT it because it would contradict gravitational laws.

[QUOTE=10273263]Originally posted by Transfinitum

>>Apparently, your education in physics has not yet progressed to the point where you grasp the physics governing the behavior of rotating shells of matter, and objects at their barycenters. One might call that "retarded". But I would prefer to assume you are simply "centrifugally challenged".

Albert Einstein is about to explain how it works for you, so listen up:

quote:
"Let K [the Universe] be a Galilean-Newtonian coordinate system [a system of three dimensions extending to the edge of the Universe] and let K' [the Earth] be a coordinate system rotating uniformly relative to K' [the universe]. Then centrifugal forces would be in effect for masses at rest in the K' coordinate system [Earth], while no such forces would be present for objects at rest in K [the universe]. Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of K' [the Earth] had to be considered as 'absolute', and that K' [the Earth] could not then be treated as the 'resting' frame of K [the universe]. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One not need view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of K' [the Earth]; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of K' [the Earth], whereby K' [the Earth] is treated as being at rest. If Newtonian mechanics disallow such a view, then this could very well be the foundation for the defects of that theory…."

---Albert Einstein, cited in Hans Thirring, "On The Effect of Rotating Distant Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physikalische Zeitschrift 19, 33, 1918

Now please read the above- especially the last sentence- very carefully, and if you can grasp its significance, then you will have learned something today.

You're welcome.

Yeah, Einstein found defects on Newton's coordinate system and corrected them . . . . this is old news. Newton assumed that spacetime is flat, Einstein made it curve. Gravity (or the curvature of spacetime) acquired greater explanatory power than before.

I see that you and your fellow geocentrists still misquote/misinterprete/misunderstand Einstein and his works. The thing is relativity maintains that there is no favored frame of reference. It makes the entire question of geocentrism vs. heliocentrism is rendered irrelevant. You could arbitrarily pick an object like the moon or Pluto or your tongue as the center of the Universe and you would find theoretical proof for that using Einstein's relativity. You just have to come up with fictitious forces to explain all the wild motions (like the geocentric aether). Geocentrists who cite this as an argument against heliocentricity are proving nothing, and those who cite this as an argument in favor of geocentrism either do not understand the logic involved, or are being deliberately misleading. Crackpots.

And you still havent explained what compels a more massive sun to orbit around a less massive Earth without breaking the laws of gravity or resorting to fictitious forces (ie. the geocentric aether).

NOTE TO ALL: Unfortunately, there is a time when the gloves have to come off, in the interests of creating a sense of the necessity of reasoned debate, given the alternatives.

I sincerely hope future posts of this type below will either (a) not appear, or (b) not contain assertions of a scientific nature.

If they do contain both snot-nosed ignorance and assertions of a scientific nature, then I will follow a suitably uninhibited policy in formulating my responses.

If they are simply the typical comments from the peanut gallery, bereft of scientific content, I am happy to ignore them.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Except, of course, for that object at the precise barycenter not only of the solar system, but of the Universe. That object, of course, will not revolve around anything. Instead, everything in the Universe will revolve around it.

Sleep-and-Intelligence Deprived Says:

"Oh please, are you telling me that this Object is our puny little Earth with its puny little gravitation is pulling the rest of the Universe to rotate around it? Thats just retardation. It breaks gravitational laws."

>>>I see that you admit to being sleep deprived. Your above, dreadfully ignorant botch-job leaves me little choice but to proceed on the assumption that you are similarly intelligence-deprived. Therefore I am going to take this in baby steps, just for you J

Notice, first, your pathetically ignorant fumble:

Intelligence Deprived Says:

"It breaks gravitational laws".

You poor fellow. First get some sleep. Then go learn what a gyroscope is. Go learn the distinction between centrifugal, inertial, and gravitational forces. It will assist you in making a less shriekingly obvious fool of yourself once you have made the colossal mistake of venturing into debate with a knowledgeable opponent.

"From our current understanding of cosmology mainly the Big Bang, the Universe DOES NOT rotate."

This is, in intellectual content, analogous to the aborigine who stamps his foot and insists that the great god Mimbo Jango has declared that fire can only be created by rubbing together the sacred sticks. When the scientifically literate visitor points out that the same principle (friction) can be employed by, say, a spark from a flint, the aboriginal fool roars in wounded outrage: "OUR CURRENT UNDERSTANDING" (read: our preternaturally stupid superstition) FORBIDS THIS!!!

Now, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived has had seventeen pages and several hundred posts in which to grasp the simple principle of Relativity, which Albert Einstein has tried to assist him in coming to grasp, thus far alas to no avail:

Albert Einstein attempts, for the umpteenth time, to educate poor Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived:

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

BABY STEP ONE FOR SLEEP-AND-INTELLIGENCE DEPRIVED:

Memorize "The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]".

EXTRA CREDIT FOR SLEEP-AND-INTELLIGENCE –DEPRIVED

Notice that the deeper, underlying principle here means that ANY coordinate system MUST be similarly susceptible to a coordinate transformation. Once you get that, review your earlier studies concerning gyroscopes, and understand that:

There can be no mathematical difference, in General Relativity, between the earth rotating on its axis, and the Universe rotating about the Earth. It is a MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY, a REQUIREMENT OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, that EITHER CHOICE OF REFERENCE FRAME BE EQUALLY ADMISSIBLE.
The physics of gyroscopes-that is, a shell of matter rotating around a center of MASS (not gravity, you ignorant chump)- and obeying laws governing CENTRIFUGAL and INERTIAL (not just gravitational, you ignorant chump) forces provide us with ALL THE FORCES NECESSARY TO DESCRIBE ALL THE MOTIONS WE SEE IN THE UNIVERSE as a consequence of an Earth motionless at the universal barycenter.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>>The barycenter of the Universe, not of the solar system, is at issue

INTELLIGENCE_DEPRIVED DIGS HIMSELF A DEEPER HOLE:

"Please do point out where this massive object (or the massive object close to it) that serves as the barycenter of the Universe is found."

BABY STEP TWO FOR INTELLIGENCE-DEPRIVED:

Learn the difference between "center of mass" and "center of gravity". Go google "Archimedes" and he will be happy to assist you in grasping this extremely important distinction. It really isn't your fault that you didn't learn this as a second or third grader. You obviously did not have the benefit of a catholic education.
Apply the principle of "center of mass" to a rotating gyroscope. Notice that it is the center of MASS, not GRAVITY, about which the gyroscope rotates. Extrapolate from this, to a shell of matter rotating about an object—even an object of very little mass- occupying the center of mass (barycenter) of that rotating shell. Notice that, no matter HOW MUCH MASS is present in the matter comprising the shell- EVEN AN ENTIRE UNIVERSE'S WORTH—it will, AS A MATTER OF PHYSICS, certainly rotate about the center of all that mass, even should that center of mass be occupied by nothing larger than a pea of approximately the same size, shape, and gravitational potential, as the brain of Sleep and Intelligence Deprived.
TO BE CONTINUED……………………………..

So, I don't get it...

Are you actually trying to argue that the Earth is the center of the universe and all objects rotate it?

my apologies, I only caught a couple of pages and really don't feel like reading back too far...

Originally posted by inimalist
So, I don't get it...

Are you actually trying to argue that the Earth is the center of the universe and all objects rotate it?

my apologies, I only caught a couple of pages and really don't feel like reading back too far...

Lead to PMs

Transfinitum wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 03:00 PM:
Yes. I am arguing geocentrism; where the Earth is the barycenter of all of the masses in the Universe, causing all of the effects that some say are only possible in a heliocentric universe. Though if you have time, read back; its quite interesting.

inimalist wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 03:12 PM:
no, it sounds pretty retarded

Transfinitum wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 03:33 PM:
Its more probable than you think; hence the reason to read back a bit; you'll see.

inimalist wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 03:40 PM:
I have 0 interest in pursuing this in PM, if you want to debate me about geocentricism, do it in the thread created for that reason

Transfinitum wrote on Apr 2nd, 2008 03:48 PM:
bring a scientific argument to the table, an I would be happy to respond; but be sure not to repost something that was debunked earlier. Cheers!

well gee, I hope I'm not brining up something that your engorging scientific mind hasn't already made mince meat of, but please, if you would be so kind, and I really hope this isn't that big of a deal, but would you mind explaining how the retrograde motion of mars, which is observable to the naked eye, is explained? Or, the rings of saturn, observable to everyone through a powerful enough telescope.

a'hyuk, gee willikers, thanks mister, I'm glad your science came along!

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Oh, how very helpful. Perhaps this "math", of which you speak, might assist us in understanding the following statement by the physicist Albert Einstein? I am told he knew a thing or two about "math"—certainly not as much as you, to be sure, but maybe at least a little something?

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS [coordinate system] could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves', or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest', would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS [coordinate systems]."

---"The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, New York, Simon and Schuster 1938, 1966 p.212

I am sure you can use your vast knowledge of "math" to help poor Einstein out here. Knock yourself out. We're all waiting………………..

>>The same way Albert Einstein just explained it to you above, and I have explained several dozens of times on this thread: If one can explain a motion from within a heliocentric coordinate system, then one MUST BE ABLE to explain the same motion from within a geocentric coordinate system. The alternative is that Relativity is wrong. If your position is that Relativity is wrong, please say so, and provide us with your "mathematical" reasoning. We are all waiting for your "mathematical" brilliance to rescue us from Einstein's insistence that whatever one can show from coordinate system A, MUST, as a matter of MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY, be able to be equally shown from coordinate system B.

Now, for those of you with some desire to actually see this for yourselves, construct the following:

Take a quarter, for Earth. Draw a circle around it, representing the Sun's orbit in the geocentric system. Have a half-dollar for the Sun. Draw a circle around the Sun, representing Mars' orbit.Let Mars be represented by a dime. Move the Sun around its circle, while moving Mars simultaneously around its circle. Notice that at a certain point Mars goes "retrograde" as it traces its orbit around the Sun, as seen from Earth.

VOILA! You have just seen why every argument Galileo made in favor of heliocentrism was wrong, and Einstein had to invent an entirely new form of physics, Relativity, to explain the failure of all experiments to disclose any motion of the Earth, either in space, or diurnally about its own axis.

>>Exactly the same way as I have answered each and every one of these scientifically illiterate notions that motions cannot be equally represented regardless of coordinate system.

In this particular case, there are no less than three different ways in which the phases of Venus can be shown in a geocentric system:

The planetary orbits are made into elliptical paths around the Sun, as Kepler did to improve the Copernican system;
The sun's motion is placed in one epicycle and the planet's epicycles are centered on the Sun (this was essentially Tycho Brahe's model);
The Earth is lined up with respect to the stars rather than respect to the Sun.

All three solutions make the paths cycloidal with respect to the Earth, and all will account for the phases of Venus.
*****************************************************

>>>Perhaps it has merely perplexed you? It certainly hasn't perplexed this geocentrist.

so, why don't you explain the observable retrograde motion of mars.

go slow, remember, I'm not as sciency as you are, clearly

and since I'm so slow, I don't know, maybe I need you to show one iota of empirical evidence for what you are saying.

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>This is an assertion for which you have no proof. In fact, most physicists reject this assertion, since we have evidence from a number of experiments of (take your pick)
A: A motion of the Solar system as a whole in the general direction of the constellation Drago (taken as a consequence of the rotation of the Solar system around a Galactic barycenter)

Or B: A motion of the ether against the Solar system as a whole, oriented along an axis perpendicular to the Drago system.

No experiment can presently distinguish between the two possibilities- although other evidence strongly suggests that (B) is the actual occurrence :-)

SLEEP AND INTELLIGENCE DEPRIVED CONTINUES:

"Oh its true, planets making stars like our sun wobble in its place is a by-product of Newton's third law. For every action there is an equal and opposite so and so.

>>Needless to say,this observation is completely irrelevant to the question of whether General Relativity requires that the two sentences: "The earth rotates on its axis" and "the Universe rotates about the earth" constitute merely arbitrary choices within different coordinate systems.

The answer to that question is: Yes, General Relativity absolutely REQUIRES that both sentences be EQUALLY true.

Once Sleep and Intelligence Deprived has grasped this, we can move beyond his shocking illiteracy as to the differences between gravitational, inertial and centrifugal forces, and the NECESSITY under the mathematics of General Relativity, that ALL such gravitational, inertial, and centrifugal forces, be derivable from the reference frames:

Earth revolves upon axis
Universe revolves around barycenter occupied by Earth.

I repeat for the umpteenth time: unless Sleep-and-Intelligence Deprived is prepared to reject General Relativity, then his only basis upon which to argue this above point, is his own, extremely well attested, ignorance of physics.

I have done all that I can reasonably be expected to do, over these past hundreds of posts, to remedy this ignorance.

Henceforth I cannot be responsible for remedying the willful, chosen stupidity of those, like Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived, who cannot grasp this principle for themselves.

INTELLIGENCE DEPRIVED CONTINUES:

Anyway, astronomers today use the star's wobble to detect and measure the mass of the planet or planets orbiting around it and they have been successful. Im honestly surprised you dont know that.

>>I do know that. I am not at all surprised that you should be so utterly confused, as to imagine that it has anything to do with the question at hand. In other words, there is absolutely nothing about the wobble of stars which either a) refutes General Relativity, or b) refutes geocentrism derived strictly from Relativity's basic principle above.

SLEEP AND INTELLIGENCE DEPRIVED LAYS ANOTHER GIGANTIC EGG:

The concept of the aether however is the one rejected by modern astronomers and physicists. Einstein was the one who did away its existence and put forth that light travels in a vacuum.

>>I assume that would be ALBERT Einstein. The physicist. That would be the wrong dude to have cited, since good old Albert admitted he needed the ether back, to fix Special Relativity's problems. The ether is back in General Relativity, as Albert is about to tell you, below:

"In 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states…..once again 'empty space' appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity…"

--Albert Einstein, "Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relatitivtatstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt" Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Sungenis, „Galileo Was Wrong", CAI 2006, p136

So again, Sleep-and-Intelligence-Deprived. We see the hilarious extent of the gap which exists between what you imagine you know, and what is actually so.

Especially when it comes to having the faintest clue about ANYTHING pertaining to Albert Einstein…..

TO BE CONTINUED>………………………..

so, outside of the coin model, which I performed and observed no retrograde motion, you have no explanation for the retrograde motion of mars?

and nothing at all to say about saturn's rings?

c'mon, you were so interested in getting me into this 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
so, outside of the coin model, which I performed and observed no retrograde motion, you have no explanation for the retrograde motion of mars?

and nothing at all to say about saturn's rings?

c'mon, you were so interested in getting me into this 🙂

He uses epicycles to explain retrograde motion.

Originally posted by inimalist
so, outside of the coin model, which I performed and observed no retrograde motion, you have no explanation for the retrograde motion of mars?

and nothing at all to say about saturn's rings?

c'mon, you were so interested in getting me into this 🙂

Is this thread for real?! I mean, with actual debate.

I just kinda assumed it was a joke and never bothered to investigate peoples' posts until now.

Really though Trans, it doesn't invalidate religious belief to defer to repeated and universally-accepted scientific data every now and then (or nigh-universal, I suppose, since this dissent is news to me).

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Is this thread for real?! I mean, with actual debate.

I just kinda assumed it was a joke and never bothered to investigate peoples' posts until now.

Really though Trans, it doesn't invalidate religious belief to defer to repeated and universally-accepted scientific data every now and then (or nigh-universal, I suppose, since this dissent is news to me).

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>> Centrifugal forces COMPEL the Sun to orbit the universal barycenter, obviously. Since the Sun is merely a tiny fraction of the universe's mass, it, along with every other object, will rotate about the universe's barycenter.

In the geocentric system, Earth is at that Universal barycenter, and the Sun, consequently, is COMPELLED to orbit around it, just like every other object in said Universe.
****************************************************************

"Centrifugal force needs to PIN the sun into something to hold it in place."

>>I see. Did you just make this up off the top of your head, or did you have help? The reason I ask is, that those who are knowledgeable about physics understand that centrifugal force is termed a "fictitious force" in Newtonian mechanics. I assume you have no idea why.

Here's why.

Newton took a bucket, partially full of water, and attached it to a rope. He wound up the rope real tight-like, and let it go. The bucket started spinning, and, as the rotation of the bucket was transferred to the water, the water started rotating with it.

So far, so good.

Then something extremely weird—to a mind as subtle as Newton's-- started to happen.

As the water started to rotate, it simultaneously started creeping up the walls of the bucket, forming a concave surface.

Now Newton, being smarter than the average chat board dilettante, found this to be a very amazing thing.

What force, he wondered, was causing the water to climb the sides of the bucket?

Now, quick, before you jump in here with a half-witted nincompoop's answer based on the level of physical knowledge we see on display in your asinine sentence above, notice that nothing is "pinning" the water to anything that it wasn't "pinned" to before the rotation began.

Get it?

The water is rising because some unknown force is acting on it, a force that is not present unless the bucket is rotating.

Now, we call this "centrifugal" force, but Newton was never able to derive the force physically, from within his notions of gravitation. That is why textbooks engaged in indoctrination of poor victims into assembly-line "science education" call the centrifugal force "fictitious".

But it isn't fictitious, we now know, thanks to Albert Einstein, Ernst Mach, and Hans Thirring.

I have posted the following quote before. It will certainly go right over your head again, but I have an obligation to try.

Here goes.

Try hard.

Read carefully.
Think it through.

BABY STEP THREE FOR SLEEP DEPRIVED

In 1918 the physicist HansThirring 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 Coriolis 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.

Finally, in his concluding remarks, Thirring states his extremely important conclusion; that he has found what has eluded Newton- a physical cause for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces which are treated as "fictitious" in Newtonian schemes:

"By means of a concrete example it has been shown that in an Einsteinian gravitational field, caused by distant rotating masses, forces appear which are analogous to the centrifugal and Coriolis forces."

---quotes from Hans Thirring, "On the Effects Of Distant Rotating Masses In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation", Physicalische Zeitschrift 22, 19 (1921), as cited in Sungenis, op cit pp. 368-369

Now stop and digest. Thirring has just found and rigorously, mathematically derived, in accordance with the Einstein gravitational equations, a physical cause for the centrifugal and Coriolis forces. This is something which neither Newton, nor any physicist operating under Newtonian gravitational theories, could do. This is the first, crucial area of demonstrable physical superiority of the Machian geocentric model, over Newtonian heliocentric models.

Please note that nothing is required to "pin" the sun to anything, any more than something is required to "pin" the Sun to the center of a heliocentric system. In the geocentric case, it is the physically-derived centrifugal forces of the distant rotating masses. In the heliocentric, it is the Newtonian law of gravitation.

I sincerely hope that this assists you in learning something that very few people know today, but a whole lot more will know as the data now available from space-based telescopes and other sensors continues to provide shocking evidence of a geocentric Universe.

TO BE CONTINUED

Dude this has to be said but stop acting like a F*CKING JACK*SS. It gets you no where and just earns hate from everybody. You can argue without insulting everybody who tries have a discussion with you.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
http://www.astro.utoronto.ca/~zhu/ast210/both.html

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

Originally posted by chickenlover98
he's been using tons of scientific data to support his position 😐

I assume you're using "data" in a loose sense, since I've slogged through some of the recent stuff and it's not really convincing, just sad.

Heck, a concrete "center" doesn't even exist to the universe...it's not uniform on all sides and changes constantly based upon expansion. We'd have to be fluctuating wildly in space just to keep up.

It's one thing for scientific ideas and religious ideas to coexist (most theists readily embrace evolution, for example, and rightly so). But it's just an attack on reason to hold articles of faith so far above empirical data that one manages to contort and pervert facts, or simply make them up, to accommodate one's views. To me, such cases are quite beyond the effort it would require, simply because reason has no place within their beliefs (unless it supports their beliefs, of course).

It's better to understand that they exist on the fringes of societal opinion, and leave them be while we make progress with those who work with factual evidence to progress our knowledge, rather than refuting it to further an incomprehensible religious agenda.

not to mention scientific data constitutes empirical observation, not rampant speculation while name dropping Einstein and relativity...

My personal "Mormon" perspective is, "We are most likely not at the general center of the universe because God has other children on other planets...children who are more righteous than we are."