Hi, all. Glad to be here. My first post, other than the required self-presentation.
By the way, is there any way to quote a single sentence from a previous post? Or must I delete manually what I don’t need?
Also, how do I double-quote? For example, if someone replies to my post, how do I quote both my initial post and his reply?
Thank you.
john gault wrote:Logically, there is no need or requirement to “prove true the geocentric model” to disprove the heliocentric.
Correct. The geocentric model is actually a WYSIWYG model.
Of course I refer to the tychonic model, where the planets orbits the Sun and the Sun orbits Earth, and the stars either orbit Sun (neo-tychonic, thus explaining parallax) or directly Earth (general tychonic model; parallax is explained differently).
john gault wrote: “The corresponding “movement of the sun”-- “rising “in the east and then moving north/northwest until noon, then moving south/southwest until it “sets” in the west. This is a path—sun arcing to the north –that is NEVER observed in the “northern hemisphere”.
I am too tired right now to imagine anything. You guys are actually keeping me from sleep. Sounds interesting though.
But you should know that geocentrism has its own problem: since all planets in the solar system are coplanar (in the ecliptic), if geocentrism is true, we should observe the outer planets (from Mars outward) when passing in front of the Sun. Another instance when I wish I was an astronomer.
Heiwa wrote:However, the Universe is mainly empty vacuum with not even a little atom flying around in that space
Wrong. The so-called vacuum is not vacuum at all. Just that nobody teaches this in their classes.
Not only it’s full of particles, but it apparently behaves as a whole.
fbenario wrote:Blueshifts, I hope - not redshifts.
Actually, redshifts have several interpretations, not only the mainstream one (i.e. expansion). But personally I will stick with expansion (but not with Big Bang), simply because it’s in the Bible.
fbenario wrote:I've always been bothered by the idea of a constantly expanding, at breath-taking speed, universe.
It’s not breath-taking. Not even with the recent detection of the acceleration.
And even it if would have been, you would have no reference frame, so again, not breath-taking.
fbenario wrote:As others here have questioned, with all this speedy expansion occurring, along with earth's supposedly fast rotation AND orbiting speed, we might expect to feel more wind all the time.
No, we wouldn’t. Space itself is expanding (although there are theories that it expands with or without objects in it; evidence still elusive to either side, to my knowledge).
And what kind of wind would you expect? Solar? Stellar? No offence, please, but I think you are confusing atmosphere with what’s beyond.
nonhocapito wrote:The old question is still valid: What keeps the earth "in place"? If not movement?
The recent geocentric models claim that Earth is the barycentre of the entire Universe.
nonhocapito wrote:Many of them, such as Galileo's observations, can be verified and have been verified by scores not only of scientists but of amateur astronomers.
Sorry to deflate you but actually there was NO EVIDENCE for heliocentrism until stellar parallax in 1838. So not only Galileo had no proof, but the situation remained like that for 2 centuries. And with the parallax there is the HUGE problem with negative parallaxes (which simply cannot be) LARGER than the positive ones.
The parallax is explained in neo-tychonic model by shifting the cause, and in all other geocentric models by claiming stars are in concentric shells around Earth, and they turn around the Earth daily with a slight delay from one to another (instead of a unison turn), thus producing parallax. I am not aware of any evidence towards individual stars (closest to Earth) being in concentric shells around Earth, however, there is STRONG evidence that galaxies are in fact positioned in concentric shells with their individual centres located on Earth.
As for the text you quoted from that geocentric site, you must become aware that not all geocentrists (actually, very few) know their science. So you proving THEM wrong doesn’t mean you proving geocentrism wrong.
And here’s your mistake: you forgot that in GSC (geostaticentrism) the Earth not only doesn’t revolve, but also doesn’t rotate (nor tilt, for that matter). So this claim of yours in unwarranted:
“Without gravity, not just air, but oceans and people would fly away as the earth rotates.”
However, the quoted text from that geocentric site is also wrong, because in heliocentrism (where Earth does rotate), the atmosphere and Earth are a single system, not 2. So their claim that “we [should] experience no 1,038 mph winds as a result of this rotation” is unwarranted.
hoi.polloi wrote:Much more information needs to be presented before we can come at it with such a dismissive attitude to modern scientific thought.
How about this, as a general rule: Earth is in the middle of pretty much all celestial things: universal expansion, galaxies, quasar polarization vectors, Gamma Ray Bursts, Bl Lac objects, X ray sources, etc.
CMB low poles also speak loudly about the special place of Earth.
Links available if required.
hoi.polloi wrote:First off, the Atlantean Conspiracy site is more heavy-handed that you even warned us about. Here are its main points - and my contentions
You miss the point - and all the fun. You are not addressing the right stuff, you’re addressing a text written to make you laugh. But also to think, when comparing the simplicity of geocentrism with the complicated language of appearance in heliocentrism.
hoi.polloi wrote:To me, the Earth does not "seem motionless".
Of course it does. How exactly it does not?
hoi.polloi wrote:Indeed, it seems to be filled with motion, air, gravity, shifts, and instabilities.
??
hoi.polloi wrote:The atomic physics theories include the idea that nothing will speed up or slow down in space unless something is there to stop it.
No offence, but the atomic physics? What exactly are you talking about?
Perhaps bordering quantum? Are you aware that, in quantum, particles don't exist (in any specific state) until observed? And that’s not the funniest thing they state.
And no, space is not empty. It’s towards the other extreme of vacuum.
Frost wrote:Instead we see always North Star fixed on the sky on the same position and the rest moving around it.
Actually, it moves slightly. Heliocentrism puts that on behalf of Earth wobble (precession), while geocentrism explains that by claiming that the Universe is wobbling, with a precession cycle of a year (instead of 26,000 years in heliocentrism).
For once, I wish I was an astronomer to finally decide between the two models. However, there is so much evidence on behalf of geocentrism that it simply cannot be ignored.
Frost wrote:My imagination tells me that stars should move a lot no matter how far they are, but obviously I can't argue about it.
No. If they are closer they would obviously appear to move more. If more distant, they would appear to move less. Won’t take very far (in formal cosmic distances) until they won’t appear to move at all.
Frost wrote:Instead we hear about Coriolis effect which is a very slight almost unnoticeable part of what we should really observe.
Actually, in heliocentrism Coriolis is responsible for hurricanes, so it’s not “unnoticeable”. In geocentrism the same effect is due to Universe rotating around Earth, rather than Earth within Universe.
Frost wrote:The geocentric model is still used for celestial navigation as the alternative method.
Correct. NASA and others use ECI (Earth Central Inertial) and ECEF (Earth Central Earth Fixed). The former is geocentric. The latter is also geostatic.
However, geocentrism has some troubles explaining LaGrange points. In general, geocentrists have problems explaining ether (or aether), since the mainstream science banished the concept once Einstein published his special relativity theory.
Strangely enough, the ether returned with a vengeance. From within mainstream science. There is no cosmologist who doesn’t include it, however they do not dare to speak its name.
Frost wrote:but I've also heard that GPS use theory of relativity for some correction of positioning.
There are quite many people who are against relativity. They usually claim that uncle Albert did nothing for the applied science (i.e. nothing useful for the mankind). The other side always brings one (and one alone) piece of evidence to the contrary: GPS. Actually, GPS (that correction of position that you mentioned) is evidence that both special and general relativity theories (SR and GR) are wrong. It was proven almost 2 decades ago by the most renowned expert in satellites. But accepting his evidence would mean that you admit that those satellites (at least GPS) are there.
But relativity is also under assault from within (i.e. mainstream science). Some of the famed relativists, like Magueijo, are claiming VSL (variable speed of light) as an alternate explanation (compared with inflation) for some of the huge problems that Big Bang has, like the horizon problem. VSL obviously led him to work, along with other famed physicists, on a modified SR, called doubly special relativity.
Frost wrote:I don't like The Atlantean Conspiracy site.
It’s very funny and also a bit instructive, once you learn how to discern between funny things and real arguments.
Frost wrote:Spinning of Earth should be detectable with simple observation or experiment
Under GR, one can never tell what’s exactly moving (Earth in heliocentrism, or the Universe in geocentrism).
Frost wrote:and I would expect something more spactacular then Foucault pendulum.
Foucault’s pendulum is no proof that the Earth is moving. Unless one would claim a significant change in Earth’s rotation (during eclipses).
hoi.polloi wrote:Indeed, the spin of the Earth is one of the first things we could argue has points for it in all models
To my knowledge, there is no geocentric model in which the Earth spins. This obviously means that in geocentrism the Moon doesn’t spin either.
hoi.polloi wrote: The helicopter problem is still not a problem at all. The helicopter launches from a certain accelerated position on the Earth, into an airspace filled with the gases of our lowest atmosphere, also accelerated by Earth's rotation. Everything has spent millions of years (or if you must doubt that, thousands of years) at a certain velocity. Ergo, nothing has significantly slowed it down and nothing will.
Correct. However you must be aware that the problem with the atmosphere is not that simple. Would you be surprised to find out that the mainstream science is so much in the corner when pressed to explain things like reversed spinning of celestial objects (incl. in our solar system), that recently had to put the guilt on atmosphere itself?
Like for example here (sorry, I don’t have the link to the actual scientific paper on this, but an article should suffice for now):
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/new ... n-on-venus
Quote: ”Correia and Laskar calculated that chaotic behaviour in the atmosphere of Venus could have slowed and then reversed the rotation of Venus“.
So if atmosphere can do that (reverse a planet’s rotation), the obvious question is why wasn’t Earth affected when a claimed asteroid led to the disappearance of dinosaurs? Why wasn’t atmosphere affected by the Tunguska event, and in turn affect Earth’s rotation? And so on.
hoi.polloi wrote: Q. Why do the stars appear to be fixed along a celestial sphere? A. Because they are.
Like Frost, you seem unable to discern between a really funny story and arguments. And you miss a lot. As for me, I laughed about an hour reading all that, about 2 years ago.
hoi.polloi wrote:Since light does have an observable limit in absolute velocity from repeated experiments
Actually, they always measure round trip. And they usually measure it with the atomic clocks, which in turn are adjusted with the speed of light (are you laughing already?).
However, it seems that the Sun (and possibly other celestial objects) has a much stronger grip on all things than previously thought.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/augu ... 82310.html
http://home.t01.itscom.net/allais/black ... zhou-2.pdf
Since radioactive elements are observed to have been affected by Sun, this, besides an uncertainty regarding the actual speed of light, also says goodbye to biological evolution (which uses decay rates to date things).
nonhocapito wrote:What would be the purpose of inventing and spreading a bogus science like this? For centuries?
To send people away from the Bible, I would guess. Have you heard of algeny?
nonhocapito wrote:All these scientists, for decades and centuries. They were not all criminals and crooks, you know.
Of course they were not. Even today. I could link you, without breaking a sweat, to tens of scientific papers from WITHIN mainstream science heavily criticising fundamentals of mainstream science. And all in the past 5 years. Extend the time range, extend the number. And it doesn’t mean I am aware of all of them. Of course I’m not.
More and more scientists are signing petitions against the stupid thing called Big Bang.
And there are MANY alternative cosmological models, beyond the closest competitor: the (quasi) steady state universe.
For example, would you be surprised to find out that the Universe might be electric? Because gravity certainly doesn’t work out there. They have to invent 5 times more matter to make gravity work (dark matter), and then they would have to invent other stuff (like WIMPs) to make dark matter work. It’s a laugh throughout.
Even NASA talks from time to time about the plasmic (electric) universe, for example here:
http://archive.org/details/ThePlasmaUniversenasaTalk
One thing for sure: electromagnetism is stronger than gravity. But they don’t want to throw Einstein in the trash bin (for metaphysical reasons).
Nevertheless, what NASA claims about the universe (what you learned in school) is apparently NOT why they use for space travel.
nonhocapito wrote:It seems absurd and possibly arrogant to think that all the people that decided to study fields such as astronomy or physics were part of some scam.
Except Creationists, AND those who really took the time to check how things are, instead of just ingesting. All the formal cosmology is a house of cards built on one thing and one thing alone: the stellar parallax.
If you take that away (and there is strong indication that the parallax is faulty: the negative ones, even larger than the positive ones), the whole castle falls apart. All those billions of light years claimed for the most distant stars suddenly become less than 2 million light years.
If instead of the claimed (but never proven) radius of the observable universe of 46.6 billion light years, you just take the distance to the farthest observed object (formally), which is 13.2 bn. ly, that means you have a radius for the Universe of about 600,000 light years.
If you further divide that by an expansion rate of 70, you obtain a figure less than 10,000 years as age for the Universe. Pretty much what the Bible says. How interesting, isn’t it? Especially since it obviously says farewell to evolution.
(hopefully everybody here uses the short scale, so nobody is confused with all those zeroes)
nonhocapito wrote: Just like all paleontologists, I suppose, must be part of the fossils scam.
Again, except the Creationist ones.
But you must be aware that the evolution theory has shifted views considerably.
For example, geologists no longer embrace uniformitarianism. Sooner or later in their presentations (or books or courses) they will call in catastrophism.
And most biologists also dropped gradualism (uniformitarianism), and embraced punctuated equilibria (since they were sick of waiting for the proof for transitory evolution). Of course, by doing that they plainly admitted they had no proof for evolution, all this time.
The obvious question is: if the mother of all assumptions (uniformitarianism), the very first thing that led them to the evolution theory a century and a half ago, was dropped, why not drop the entire theory?
And the answer is, as in cosmology, one alone: for metaphysical reasons. They really have nothing else up their sleeve to counter Creation.
scud wrote:I can only be as sure as to the truthfulness of ‘Geocentricism’ as the next man.
Actually, you can be much more sure than that.
scud wrote:Here’s Robert Sungenis Ph.D speaking plain English and locking horns
Sungenis’ doctoral title is heavily contested by the heliocentrists. If you want to do any good for the geocentrism cause, I suggest you don’t mention that. You should proclaim geocentrism, not its supporters.
The co-author (Bennett) is also heavily contested - not directly his Ph.D. title, but his science, especially relativity.
However, this doesn’t mean that they are wrong. But to any objective observer it doesn’t mean that they are right, either.
What I noticed is that while both Sungenis and Bennett lack much in argumentation on forums (they “tested” their book before publishing it), their book (I read a chapter or two) is MUCH more consistent. It could be that the book is actually the work of many people, who chose to stay anonymous.
scud wrote: Gases do not ‘stick‘ to solids, though of course they can easily be moved by solids.
Actually, other planets (and not only: other moons) have atmosphere too. And even you would admit that they rotate. So unless you state all NASA claims as bogus, your argument is faulty.
scud wrote:This ‘celestial sphere’ may look ridiculously simplistic or perhaps even far-fetched but is in fact exactly what we observe as shown in time lapse photography, which remains the same...no matter the time of year. i.e if I took a time lapse of the heavens thus...
...in six months time (when, according to the Heliocentric model we should be approx’ 188,000,000 miles from whence we took our original picture) the resulting image will be precisely the same! The Pole star (top dead centre of the sphere above and centre of the photograph) and every other star will not have shifted apparent position one iota.
Actually, it will. Polaris wobbles. And therefore the entire (apparent of actual) celestial sphere.
scud wrote:How do you know how far away they are? Watchya use? Trig’, radar...a tape measure? Nah. All this ‘billions of light years’ malarkey is the only thing that makes it work and it’s no better than guess work!
Actually, they use trig. For stellar parallax. And close stars. Then they use this methodology for more distant stellar distances: colour vs. brightness vs. apparent brightness.
scud wrote:One other point (carrying the risk of rambling here so I’ll let you do a bit of research...if compelled of course) is that relatively recently a tiny, tiny bit of parallax has been detected between certain stars (can’t remember which though).
Would you call 1838 as “relatively recent”? It’s about halfway from Galileo to us.
Regarding your tone (and perhaps I speak for others here too), I think you’re doing a huge disservice to geocentrism (and to yourself) with your poor choice of words and your superior (all-knowing) tone. Perhaps you could calm down and present arguments in a rational manner. Thank you.
Thanks to all.