geocentric theory: catholic propaganda?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 😬

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 [b]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. [/B]

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?

Yes.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
If so, then has the rate of slowing changed over time?

Yes,

Originally posted by Transfinitum
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.

There was no fragile echo systems on the Earth 2 billion years ago.

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

Originally posted by Transfinitum
But it gets worse, how is it that now (and for the entirety of known history) we have had a 24-hour day?

We have only recently been able to measure the length of the day down to the precision needed to see the variance. The Earth is currently slowing down very, very, very, slowly.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
How is it that the Earth knew to stop slowing down when it reached a 24-hour day?

The Earth didn't’t know anything. We are simply at the point where the days are 24 hours. BTW the length of the day is not perfect.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
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.

Because we have not accounted for all the retardation does not mean anything.

Originally posted by Transfinitum
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.

Not knowing all the answers does not mean it is wrong. However, the phenomena its self, is evidence of something. I think it is more reasonable to conclude that the Earth is spinning.

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 Shakyamunison
Yes.

Yes,

There was no fragile echo systems on the Earth 2 billion years ago.

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

We have only recently been able to measure the length of the day down to the precision needed to see the variance. The Earth is currently slowing down very, very, very, slowly.

The Earth didn't’t know anything. We are simply at the point where the days are 24 hours. BTW the length of the day is not perfect.

Because we have not accounted for all the retardation does not mean anything.

Not knowing all the answers does not mean it is wrong. However, the phenomena its self, is evidence of something. I think it is more reasonable to conclude that the Earth is spinning.

here was no fragile echo systems on the Earth 2 billion years ago.

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

We have only recently been able to measure the length of the day down to the precision needed to see the variance. The Earth is currently slowing down very, very, very, slowly.

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."

Not knowing all the answers does not mean it is wrong. However, the phenomena its self, is evidence of something. I think it is more reasonable to conclude that the Earth is spinning.

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. [/QUOTE]

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.