geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>It actually hasn't been much of a debate since Sleepy's withdrawal. At least Sleepy and his handlers understood that intellectual integrity in scientific debate means:

1. Providing scientific sources to support one's claims
2. Responding specifically to one's opponents legitimate scientific citations.

Now it is true that Sleepy's attempts to respond to my citations were unsuccessful, since more recent papers refuted his assertions. But he was one hundred times less dishonest than the pathetic substitutes, such as yourself, who have attempted to step into the gap since. You (and they) are apparently not equipped intellectually to understand that one is obligated to read, understand, and respond to one's opponent, if one wishes to honorably prevail in debate.

Your post is about to provide us with an object lesson in how not to display intellectual integrity in scientific debate.

If I were a heliocentrist, I would be increasingly uneasy to witness the progressively more obvious catastrophe which has befallen the heliocentric position in this debate.

Perhaps someone with some intelligence and some scientific integrity might show up and try to salvage what is presently a pretty conclusive smackdown for the geocentrists.

Based on this post, it certainly won't be you who answers the call :-)

>>For the billionth time, General Relativity posits that it were impossible to say whether the Earth is rotating, or the Universe is rotating. In fact, General Relativity goes so far as to insist, that there is no physical difference between the two statements. Your illiterate botch job above will now be refuted, honorably, by the accurate citation of the actual founder of relativity, Albert Einstein. If a reader of this debate wishes to know which side is winning, he might begin by noticing that it is the geocentrists who quote Einstein, whilst the (remaining) heliocentrists quote the rumblings of their upset stomachs.

Vive la difference!

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

So, my friend. There it is, in black and white. Now you can continue to insist, like some witch doctor secure in the assurance that his fetish bag renders him invulnerable, that you are not required to honestly and truthfully respond to Einstein's devastating refutation of your botched claim above.

But always remember that the thread remains here, for anyone with an honest and objective mind to review. You are going to assist them in distinguishing between the relative intellectual integrity of our arguments.

And that is precisely how science advances, btw. What "everybody knows" is shown, slowly and patiently, to be at odds with known facts. Eventually, the defenders of "what everybody knows", are reduced to banging their shoe on the desk like Krushchev, insisting that "we will bury you".

History has not been kind to such pathetic excuses for "arguments", my friend.

>>We now know General Relativity to have been in error in this assertion. The discovery of the CMB dipole is conclusive proof that our universe does, in fact, have a center, and the astrophysicists are now busily trying to determine where it might be. Present estimates place it within 99.5% agreement with the geocentrist position: Earth.

The relevant paper, which is presented on ArXiv as a mathematical proof, has been cited numerous times. Read it and weep, chum, and in future be good enough to do your bloody homework before posting:

http://arxiv..org/PS_cache/astro-ph/...1/0701151v5.pdf

Some choice excerpts:

Now there is nothing wrong with you being ignorant of this discovery. Most non-specialists are ignorant of it. But there is no excuse for you to drop in here and post your illiterate's botch job, when a basic review of the thread would have remedied your ignorance.

So I have now remedied it for you yet again.

>>But you poor fellow, if you had merely read one or two posts back, you would have saved yourself the embarrasment of having Einstein contradict you once again. But first, let me ask you-who should we believe here? You, or the senior lecturer in physics at Exeter University, and author of the internationally distributed scientific text "An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity"?

Rosser, op cit, p.460

And just in case you needed some more evidence of the catastrophic difference between your understanding of Relativity, and Relativity, here is Albert Einstein to straighten you out further on the question:

Albert Einstein, "Relativity, the Special and the General Theory" authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1961, p. 85

So, here we have another interesting example of the heliocentrists insisting that relativity means one thing, when Einstein and leading physicists assure us it means quite another.

And most disturbing of all, I am sure, for the casual reader, is that it is always the geocentrists who actually quote Einstein, and never the heliocentrists who stupidly blunder about contradicting him!

>>It certainly is not surprising that you should not see something. There are a great many things which are quite easy to see, which you have proven very conclusively that you do not see. Why, therefore, should we be surprised to have you admit to another?

But one reason to "feel" the "need" to become a geocentrist would be, if the evidence led one to that conclusion.

Since evidence is not your strong suit, I can understand why such a thing would never occur to you.

>>I suggest a new shoe :-)

2. I didn't say that General Relativity precludes using the reference frame of the Earth, which you seem to be implying I did, I was simply deploring the assertion that General Relativity prescribes it.

3. I didn't say that the universe can't or doesn't have a center of expansion - your link doesn't work for me, but I surmise that is what the article deals with. When taken in the context of the thread and of my statement as a whole, it's pretty clear my statement is merely indicating no reference frame for all motion in the universe is any more valid than any other afaik.

Nor does it say I think the universe doesn't have a true barycentre, nor is it to say I preclude the idea that there can be a physically preferred reference frame - but I've seen nothing to indicate that either has been identified and that this identity is the Earth.

4. I'm aware that space-time must be "flat" for special relativity to apply, I'm aware that sufficient gravitational fields can permit superluminal velocity, in fact much of your wall of text I am generally aware of although I may not know the minutiae. As you're probably aware that even objects within our solar system under a geocentric model require superluminal velocities, which I'm unaware of any huge gravitational field to account for - although apparently you are in which case I'm open to enlightenment.

5. While I have some grasp of physics from years ago, apparently limited as it may be, obviously I'm not a physicist, a constituency I doubt is very large on a movie internet forum - which apparently as a 15 year old boy you paint yourself to be. I deal with much more interesting fare (neuroscience). I'm also generally not a jackass in explanation of matters pertaining to my chosen field to other people. 🙂

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^as do a lot of people with "faith" .

A person with strong faith does not need to insult people. It is the ones with weak faith that need to defend their faith by insulting others.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A person with strong faith does not need to insult people. It is the ones with weak faith that need to defend their faith by insulting others.

it was meant as a joke shaky. you just pointed it out. i was merely commenting on the word "faith" being usually used to describe DOGMATISM{which is what most organised relegions are, although they are generally referred to as FAITHS} which in reality is the OPPOSITE implication of faith.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. I'm not a "heliocentrist" if, by that implication in your wall of text, you're presuming I think the universe revolves around the sun.

2. I didn't say that General Relativity precludes using the reference frame of the Earth, which you seem to be implying I did, I was simply deploring the assertion that General Relativity prescribes it.

3. I didn't say that the universe can't or doesn't have a center of expansion - your link doesn't work for me, but I surmise that is what the article deals with. When taken in the context of the thread and of my statement as a whole, it's pretty clear my statement is merely indicating no reference frame for all motion in the universe is any more valid than any other afaik.

Nor does it say I think the universe doesn't have a true barycentre, nor is it to say I preclude the idea that there can be a physically preferred reference frame - but I've seen nothing to indicate that either has been identified and that this identity is the Earth.

4. I'm aware that space-time must be "flat" for special relativity to apply, I'm aware that sufficient gravitational fields can permit superluminal velocity, in fact much of your wall of text I am generally aware of although I may not know the minutiae. As you're probably aware that even objects within our solar system under a geocentric model require superluminal velocities, which I'm unaware of any huge gravitational field to account for - although apparently you are in which case I'm open to enlightenment.

5. While I have some grasp of physics from years ago, apparently limited as it may be, obviously I'm not a physicist, a constituency I doubt is very large on a movie internet forum - which apparently as a 15 year old boy you paint yourself to be. I deal with much more interesting fare (neuroscience). I'm also generally not a jackass in explanation of matters pertaining to my chosen field to other people. 🙂

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A person with strong faith does not need to insult people. It is the ones with weak faith that need to defend their faith by insulting others.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
full of himself. yes. jackass........most of the time. he needs to calm down and stop overly defending his position and use SOME modicum of courtesy. he is 15 and he goes to my school. btw in case you didnt read it(im assuming you didnt because this is a 30+ page thread) he uses the ether to explain FTL speeds. he has like 5 einstein quotes where he posites that einstein states general relativity cannot exist without the ether. i cant disprove that(although i know its wrong) unfortunately, seeing as i havent even taken physics

As far as I'm aware a geocentric physical model of the universe offers no additional predictive power and is far more complicated. And in the event that one can prove it, it really does nothing to support any deity, despite that the only reasons for even preferring it are theological and not as far as I'm aware evidentiary, regardless of how much rhetoric one chooses to propound about it being so. And my comment about this thread being a spectacular waste of time stands.

I can spin around all I want but I'm not accelerating the moon or the sun to superluminal speeds no matter how hard I try.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
full of himself. yes. jackass........most of the time. he needs to calm down and stop overly defending his position and use SOME modicum of courtesy. he is 15 and he goes to my school. btw in case you didnt read it(im assuming you didnt because this is a 30+ page thread) he uses the ether to explain FTL speeds. he has like 5 einstein quotes where he posites that einstein states general relativity cannot exist without the ether. i cant disprove that(although i know its wrong) unfortunately, seeing as i havent even taken physics

lmao, if thats the truth. a 15 year old claiming to understand the full implications of relevtinity and quantum mechanics. oh well, ive seen worse. just goes to show how many beleivers spew out textbook church material to mak it seem like they know everything. and as far as i know, einstien{and this is backed by statements from stephen hawkings and roger penrose} and reletivity was actually the theory that FINISHED the need for a classical ether{i.e. ultimae frame of reference} because it seemed from experimentaion that things didnt go beyond lightspeed EVER, even in reletive motion, which is what was initially predicted by an ether.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lmao, if thats the truth. a 15 year old claiming to understand the full implications of relevtinity and quantum mechanics. oh well, ive seen worse. just goes to show how many beleivers spew out textbook church material to mak it seem like they know everything. and as far as i know, einstien{and this is backed by statements from stephen hawkings and roger penrose} and reletivity was actually the theory that FINISHED the need for a classical ether{i.e. ultimae frame of reference} because it seemed from experimentaion that things didnt go beyond lightspeed EVER, even in reletive motion, which is what was initially predicted by an ether.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
it was meant as a joke shaky. you just pointed it out. i was merely commenting on the word "faith" being usually used to describe DOGMATISM{which is what most organised relegions are, although they are generally referred to as FAITHS} which in reality is the OPPOSITE implication of faith.

I know what you were talking about. I was using the word faith to further show how “some people” do not have faith. A person with stronge faith in their religion doesn’t need to change the world to fit their ideas, or a book.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you kinda just proved his point by jumping on it. thats the problem with people who have EXTRMELY strong ties to religion, they cant take a joke. you can, but you get overly defensive about some things 😛

I did not jump on anything, and “extremely strong ties” is all together different then faith. Faith doesn’t have to be right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know what you were talking about. I was using the word faith to further show how “some people” do not have faith. A person with stronge faith in their religion doesn’t need to change the world to fit their ideas, or a book.

I did not jump on anything, and “extremely strong ties” is all together different then faith. Faith doesn’t have to be right.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. I'm not a "heliocentrist" if, by that implication in your wall of text, you're presuming I think the universe revolves around the sun.

>>So noted. Acrtually, the term "heliocentrist" would generally refer today to one who believes the Earth is revolving around the Sun annually, and rotating upon its axis daily. Hardly anyone believes, like Galileo did, that the Sun sits immobile at the center of the Universe.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
2. I didn't say that General Relativity precludes using the reference frame of the Earth, which you seem to be implying I did, I was simply deploring the assertion that General Relativity prescribes it.

>>Since I never made that deplorable assertion, I responded as I did, so as to make it clear that General Relativity rejects both heliocentrism and geocentrism in absolute terms, substituting for both an "acentrism" which has, itself, been falsified by the most recent space-based observations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Since we now know that the Universe does have a center, the game is back on as to where it might be. The existing scientific evidence that it might be Earth is rather astounding, in my opinion. I have provided some of that evidence throughout this thread and would cordially invite you to review it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
3. I didn't say that the universe can't or doesn't have a center of expansion - your link doesn't work for me, but I surmise that is what the article deals with.

>>My apologies for the link. Try this one:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0710/0710.5321v1.pdf

This paper, published in February of this year, is structured not as a typical research hypothesis. It is instead structured as a mathematical proof. The significance of this has not been lost upon the astrophysics community, which is generally struggling to come to terms with the shocking evidence that our Universe is simply not going to cooperate with Einstein after all.

Nothing against Eisntein, he had a nice run. But, like all strictly empiricist theories, his has ultimately failed to survive its inevitable collision with experimental facts.

It is rather stunning, however, to reflect upon the fact that these new CMB observations yield a universe completely consistent with the predictions of geocentrism. Even the initial attempts to locate the universal center are turning out to be within 99.5% agreement with the geocentrist position.

I find this quite remarkable, don't you?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
When taken in the context of the thread and of my statement as a whole, it's pretty clear my statement is merely indicating no reference frame for all motion in the universe is any more valid than any other afaik.

>>But of course, if the Universe has a center- and we now know that it does-this would immediately contradict the acentric assumptions of General relativity. In addition to this, the GPS research I posted exhaustively on this thread shows, beyond any question whatsoever, that both the GPS and deep space satellite navigational software employed by JPL incorporate a preferred, Earth Centered reference frame, based upon an observed anisotropy of the speed of EM propagation depending upon whether the satellites are moving toward or away from a ground based receiver. This is, by the way, the death knell for both Special and General relativity.

I invite you to look into this shocking evidence for yourself:

http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf

Here are some crucial excerpts:

"Yes, the GPS equation depends on the constancy of the speed of light relative to the earth-centered inertial (ECI) nonrotating frame—but that is contrary to SRT. A receiver moving in the ECI frame does not see an isotropic light speed of c."
"The receiver position in the range equation is its position at the time the signal is received. This means that the pattern of motion of the receiver during the signal transit time is completely immaterial. The receiver could have moved in a huge series of loops during the transit time. It would not matter—it is the receivers position at the time of reception of the signal which matters.....Clearly, the JPL equations treat the speed of light as constant with respect to the frame—not as constant with respect to the receivers. In the GPS nomenclature, the one-way Sagnac effect must be accounted for on all signal paths."

Nor does it say I think the universe doesn't have a true barycentre, nor is it to say I preclude the idea that there can be a physically preferred reference frame - but I've seen nothing to indicate that either has been identified and that this identity is the Earth.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
4. I'm aware that space-time must be "flat" for special relativity to apply, I'm aware that sufficient gravitational fields can permit superluminal velocity, in fact much of your wall of text I am generally aware of although I may not know the minutiae. As you're probably aware that even objects within our solar system under a geocentric model require superluminal velocities, which I'm unaware of any huge gravitational field to account for - although apparently you are in which case I'm open to enlightenment.

>>While it is true that geocentrism can be (must be able to be!) perfectly accomodated within existing GR models, including superluminal velocities given a gravitational force which increases in proportion to the distance from Earth, it is also true that geocentrism does not require superluminal velocities of these stars. All that geocentrism claims, is that the Universe is rotating once per day around the universal barycenter (Earth), and the stars are being carried along in that motion. The motion of the stars within that medium is practically nil, in fact. It is only if we accept the (thoroughly discredited) early-SR model of space as a "vacuum", that we are required to rely upon the gravitational effects of rotating masses, as in Einstein and Thirring.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
While I have some grasp of physics from years ago, apparently limited as it may be, obviously I'm not a physicist, a constituency I doubt is very large on a movie internet forum - which apparently as a 15 year old boy you paint yourself to be. I deal with much more interesting fare (neuroscience).

>>Interesting field. But physics has its consolations as well.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I'm also generally not a jackass in explanation of matters pertaining to my chosen field to other people.

>> Glad to hear it. Allow me to point out that you most certainly were a jackass in your initial response to me here :-)

I would review the information present if I cared enough (although the notion of an increasing gravitational field with distance is for lack of a better word interesting). Unfortunately I don't. The WMAP CMB data may be flawed or there may be something in the locale interfering in some way, or it may be completely sound. The universal barycenter may or may not be the Earth, you've yet to make a believer out of me, but I frankly don't think it matters either way. Have fun with your future in astrophysics.

^the gravitational field would have to have an origin{which it doesnt} and itss effects like gravitational lensing would have to be observable{which they arent} and it would have to violate the inverse square law{which we dont see it do, seeing as it doesnt even exist and what does exist doesnt violate the law}, it would also have to be non uniformly distributed seeing as it doesnt just pull every non uniform formation of matter in the universe into the direction of earth, and its source would be larger than all the black holes of the universe combined, hence it would be asuper blackhole EXACTLY where earth was{even taking out the non uniform aspect} and we wudnt exist as a result.

also, why is it, that trans shies away from providing evidence for such gravitational anomolies when he HIMSELF brought up the argument that super luminal speeds can exist inside gravitational field{and this was to rebut the previous point against reletivity making such speeds impossible} and instead brings in an ETHER type substance which DRAGS the contents of the universe like a sphere with the earth as its centre. forgetting that if infact the whole universe were part of such an ether, no resulting circular motion would be OBSERVED "inside" the universe.

furthermore, he seems to have a lot of psuedo evidence AGAINST the presumptions by science{oddly, claiming to COMPLETELY destroy reletivity and einstien when it suits his needs, but taking FROM reletivity when his arguments desire it} but none to actually give ANY hint that HIS vastly unlikely {forgetting contradictions} version of events transpires in any way shape or form{still waiting on the explanation of gravitional anomolies which allow super luminal speeds.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
just the fact that saying believing in something that is untrue is just retarded to me. im sorry but ive never really believed in deluding myself. frankly for people that couldnt live without your faith, maybe you shouldnt be alive. if you need to rely on an idea to survive, you dont deserve to, simple as that. if faith ENHANCES your life, then its a different situation. but for those that need faith, i dont pity you, and i wish the worst for you. not you of course because either way your still hilarious

You are confused. You think I'm talking about religion. Well let me tell you that what you said above reflects your own faith. You can't prove any of that, so you have found an answer that works for you, but it's just as much faith as any other. I think the reason you have no tolerance for people with different faith then yours is because they threaten your own weak faith.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^the gravitational field would have to have an origin{which it doesnt} and itss effects like gravitational lensing would have to be observable{which they arent} and it would have to violate the inverse square law{which we dont see it do, seeing as it doesnt even exist and what does exist doesnt violate the law}, it would also have to be non uniformly distributed seeing as it doesnt just pull every non uniform formation of matter in the universe into the direction of earth, and its source would be larger than all the black holes of the universe combined, hence it would be asuper blackhole EXACTLY where earth was{even taking out the non uniform aspect} and we wudnt exist as a result.

also, why is it, that trans shies away from providing evidence for such gravitational anomolies when he HIMSELF brought up the argument that super luminal speeds can exist inside gravitational field{and this was to rebut the previous point against reletivity making such speeds impossible} and instead brings in an ETHER type substance which DRAGS the contents of the universe like a sphere with the earth as its centre. forgetting that if infact the whole universe were part of such an ether, no resulting circular motion would be OBSERVED "inside" the universe.

furthermore, he seems to have a lot of psuedo evidence AGAINST the presumptions by science{oddly, claiming to COMPLETELY destroy reletivity and einstien when it suits his needs, but taking FROM reletivity when his arguments desire it} but none to actually give ANY hint that HIS vastly unlikely {forgetting contradictions} version of events transpires in any way shape or form{still waiting on the explanation of gravitional anomolies which allow super luminal speeds.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are confused. You think I'm talking about religion. Well let me tell you that what you said above reflects your own faith. You can't prove any of that, so you have found an answer that works for you, but it's just as much faith as any other. I think the reason you have no tolerance for people with different faith then yours is because they threaten your own weak faith.

and as to finding an answer that works for me, you just described human nature congradulations. want a cookie? 😕

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you misunderstand. i have no faith in a higher being. i have faith in people and myself. im talking about people who literally would kill themselves if they found out positively 100 % there is no god. that kind of lunacy. those people should just die.

and as to finding an answer that works for me, you just described human nature congradulations. want a cookie? 😕

careful, i used to be one of those people, whod literally kill themselves if they found out no god exists. point is, we shud always have hope in humanity, it is the ideology at its basis that is bad, many humans manage to do a lot of decent things in its name. that is the human condition.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
you misunderstand. i have no faith in a higher being. i have faith in people and myself. im talking about people who literally would kill themselves if they found out positively 100 % there is no god. that kind of lunacy. those people should just die.

and as to finding an answer that works for me, you just described human nature congradulations. want a cookie? 😕

I never said anything about a higher being. Are you forgetting that I an not a Christian?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said anything about a higher being. Are you forgetting that I an not a Christian?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
if i really must ill clarify. those who need to believe in something, reincarnation, a higher being, etc. anything other than we can observe with our eyes, emotions and science. i find it pathetic personally. i dont see a need for a system, or being like that.

Then your belief that these things are not true are also pathetic. Your beliefs are based on faith that someone eases belief is not true. Now that is pathetic. 😉