You have no proof for this position whatsoever, and if you insist upon it, then you simultaneously insist that General Relativity is wrong. You must now prove both propositions. Good luck.
fallacy. you are providing false choices. general reletivity proves your argument wrong but u post shady hypothesis which are again proven wrong. the scenarios you post are completely alien and inconcistant. i dont have to prove general reletivity wrong at all, you just have to look at the above argument.
Sorry, wrong again. It is the center of MASS, not the center of GRAVITY, that the Earth occupies in the geocentric Universe. It is extremely important to learn the difference. The gyroscope does not rotate around the center of gravity, obviously, but instead the center of mass.See above. You have unfortunately become confused as to the difference between center of mass and center of gravity.
lmao, you are intentionally putting words in my mouth and trying to make it look like i was confused about the two. i was not, and again, it has nuthing to do with what i was saying. i was merely commenting on the strength of gravitic fields needed to keep such motion in place reletive to us. please remind me again, how strong the gravitic field strength must be for bodies to attain speeds around 30458333333 times that of the speed of light{for celestial bodies a couple of billion lightyears away} . then explain to me the entropy of the black holes and the size of the blackholes required to produce such fields{remember this is for just one celestial body} and also explain to me the probability, with the mass distribution of galaxies and even the universe as a whole{which again isnt uniform} around it how it is possible that it doesnt affect mass other than the single thing its supposed to be affecting. also tell me the mechanics of how such gravity field inducing objectis will be able to constantly be around the object and retain the same speed they do and at the same time, curve in their orbit to follow the geocentric orbit of the mass being observed from the eartha nd what kind of sensitive equilibrium wid be required for them to keep the object almost on their event horizon but not swallow it up inside them. i think ull come to come ridiculous answers.
It is not gravity which expands space. Gravity is a function of matter, which obviously does not exist outside of space. Therefore it is not gravity which is expanding space in the Standard Theory.
[/QUOT]TUT TUT TUT. i didnt say expand space. i said STRETCH space. and you do nuthing but obscure the reply. u didnt answer my question. u said that gravitic fields can explain how the geocentric orbits of all celestial objects can be far beyond lightspeed and always make the orbit withing 24 hours, implying that the earth isnt spinning around its exis. however, i told you that the effects of no such gravitic fields{which cud impart FTL speeds } are ever detected in these regions, much less, ones strong and specfic enough to do what you propose celestial bodies do{geocentric orbit} . you are unable to reply
[QUOTE]
But you see this is precisely the problem for your team. We DO observe redshifts, at distances which are assumed to be so great, that the objects must be moving greater than the speed of light. In order to account for this observation, the current consensus is required to borrow a page from the "Big Bang" creation myth, where "inflation" allows space to expand to the volume of the solar system in less than a second. This, obviously, invloves a massive violation of the speed of light, but is accepted anyway, with the argument that "space" is somehow exempt from the constraint.What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, my friend. If you guys can claim motion of matter greater than "c", you certainly have no grounds at all to insist that geocentrism can't.
now THIS just blatantly proves that you know very little about the subject that you are presuming to be an expert at. lol. space is not EXPANDING in any traditional way as i explained before. it expands in higher dimension and the expansion is only reletive to us. nuthing INSIDE space can travel beyond lightspeed. the speed restriction is for the fabric OF space, not SPACE ITSELF. space exists differently for different observers and hence is not an ultimate refernce frame. for example, to us a photon is moving with the speed of light in a vacume. in space and time. but for the photon, it and the world around it has forever stopped at one point in time. its the same photon but the things around it and the dimensions are vastly different from the point of view of the observer. which is why muons decay so quickly, the space time fabric is different for them at such high speeds. and it isnt accepted ANYWAY, you just do no understand that they are two seperate arguments with no corellation. the way you are trying to argue is a way a laman wud try to argue that einstien proved that energy is eternal, therefore, the human conciousness and mental energies must always exists, hence the soul being immortal.
I have shown that the only contradiction here, is your defense of a Standard Theory which insists that objects can and do move faster than the speed of light, while simultaneously calling me "ridiculous" for agreeing with you. That is indeed a contradiction, but it is one which affects your position, not mine.
objects and space are vastly different things. contradiction remains as the two have no corellation here. objects exist INSIDE space. speed =distance{IN space/time} . how can u argue the same for space expansion when u dont even know what space expands IN?
Fascinating. So some anonymous dude in a chat room decides he will tell us when Einstein is right and when Einstein is wrong, without being bothered with the pesky details of demonstrating just how and on what evidence he makes these claims.
widely quoted fact that einstied didnt agree with heisenberg's principle and always beleived that the universe was a constant and predictable system{god does not play with dice}. he was an ardent opposer of quantum theory and didnt think it was right. well gues what, every other scientist after him admitted that einstien was wrong on the account{and unreasoneable as his own work on black body radiation and photoelectron emission led to the theory being formulated} and quantum theory is currently the most well established fundamental theory. and there has NEVER been an observation contradicting the expected outcome of the theory.
You are quite wrong here. Einstein DID take away the concept of the ether, in Special Relativity. He was required to put it back, in the LATER General Theory, as he himself specifically told you in the quote I provided.
wrong, he put a cosmological constant later on to explain the expanding universe and later called it "the greatest blunder of his life". u forgot both those. the conept of an ultimate spacial or time frame{ether} was completely blasted away after reletivity was established, this is known fact.