Replies

The evidence is out there. You just need to get off your butt and go read it.

A geocentrist - in 2007! Shaking head with amazement.

BTW, a well written page:

http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/PSEUDOSC/Geocentrism.HTM

"Geocentrists don't deal with the hard questions. The earth is at the center of the universe? Well, what part of it? London? Paris? Some point about 1500 miles below Pago Pago? The center? Which center? The geometric center? The center of mass? Those won't be exactly at the same place. What happened when Mount Saint Helens collapsed? The shape of the earth changed slightly, so the geometric center of the earth shifted. Since mass was redistributed, the center of mass shifted. Did the whole universe shift slightly in response?

Geocentrists are wusses. The true physical picture of the universe is egocentrism. I am the center of the universe. I never move (You do, however. Sorry, but your claim that you are the center of the universe is mere heresy.) If I "go down to the first floor to get a cup of coffee," I don't actually move. When I walk to the elevator I really stand still and push the earth and the entire universe behind me with my feet. When I get into the elevator I exert a force that causes the earth and the universe to move upward relative to me. If I do a pirouette, I really push against the earth and cause it and the universe beyond to spin. That funny feeling I have afterward is merely due to the gravitational pull of all that spinning mass attracting my inner ears. When I did pushups in the Army I really did push-aways, and chin-ups were really me pulling the whole universe down past my chin. No wonder they were so hard. Situps are the worst. You try swiveling the earth and the whole universe through 90 degrees with just your stomach and leg muscles. The universe is so fixated on me that if I give it a chance, like say jumping off a bridge, it will rush toward me so hard it will kill me.

Well, if you buy the deconstructionist psychobabble picture of science, egocentrism is just as valid as geocentrism or heliocentrism. Still, to make it work, I have to invent all sorts of weird forces that act only when I do certain things, and there is no way to predict exactly when they will appear, what they will do or why they work. On the other hand, assuming that I move relative to the earth makes all these problems go away. So, even from an egocentric perspective, why would I want to embrace a convoluted theory that requires me to postulate all sorts of bizarre forces that contribute nothing toward my understanding of the way things work? The only possible answer is that I want to believe in egocentrism regardless of the evidence, and redefine reality to fit my preconceptions."

"Geocentrists are wusses."

This is nothing more than a continued appeal to ridicule.

Ernst Mach showed that the rules of geometry would be violated if there were any essential difference between geocentric and heliocentric models.

In Einstein's GR, differenct coordinate systems (which is what geocentrism and heliocentrism are) are interchangeable.

Sir Fred Hoyle recognized that there is no way to tell astronomically which model is correct.

Yes, the evidence is out there and that evidence shows that there is no discernable difference between the two models. What this means is that you cannot prove scientifically that one model is correct and the other is not.

I used to be a heliocentrist until I started looking at the evidence for geocentrism. Once I realized that it was impossible to prove that heliocentrism was correct, I rejected it. That you have a strong philosophical preference for heliocentrism is obvious, but philosophical desires are not science.

You need to stop pretending that heliocentrism is proven. It isn't and the work done by multiple pre-eminent scientists shows that it is impossible to do so.

This gets back to my initial claim that many people harbor beliefs that they think are scientifically proven when they are not. Heliocentrism is one of those beliefs.

You do realize that Michelson-Morley was the experiment that was *desinged* to detect that *assumed* motion of the earth around the sun. You do realize that it found no motion. This is why heliocentric and geocentric models are consistent CS under GR. They have to be because Einstein assumed that the earth was moving and had to develop a theory that was consistent with the evidence that it was not.

You do realize that telescopes must be angled slightly so that starlight focuses properly? This angle is assumed to be the result of the earth's motion, yet if you fill the telescope with water (which slows the speed of light and would require an increase in the angle of the telescope) that no increase in angle is required? This is known as Airey's failure.

You do realize that the only arguments against geocentrism are emotional?