quote:
Hopefully you're not playing rhetorical games with the word "definite." Evidence that the Earth is neither the center of the universe or solar system has been provided throughout this thread. There's no particular specific approach to responding that you have to take, but you do have to respond somehow. You can't just pretend no evidence was presented.
I will now explain in detail why what was presented was not what it was claimed to be. But to first clear things up, no, I am not asking anyone to show me definite proof of anything. Because I know that is not possible. But the person I was replying to said that we definitely know thaz the Earth was moving. So, since he used the word definitely, I used it too. Even though I am well aware that science does not deal with definites.
quote:
Perhaps you believe the evidence is inadequate, and in that case it is incumbent upon you to explain how. Just to pick one post at random, in Message 365 DevilsAdvocate provided evidence, but you never responded. So one possible approach you could take would be to explain how the presented evidence is inadequate. Perhaps it is inconclusive or has been misinterpreted.
Actually, I did respond, but never mind. I am going to do it again, in full detail.
The problem witht he presented eveidence is that they are not really evidence. They are interpretations. And interpretations can go any way. I will now explain using this analogy.
Imagine if you were in a train. But this train had no windows. If the train was moving, how would you know? You basicly feel no motion, so you do not know if you are moving or not. But you really want to find out if you are moving or not. So, what is your starting logical assumption? Well, obviously, if you don't feel any movement, you will assume for starters, that you are not moving. Right?
The same goes for the Earth. We do not feel that we are moving. So our first logical assumption is that we are not moving. This is nod evidence that we are not moving. This is not a fact, that we are not moving, this is just our starting assumption. Becasue we have no good reson to think that we are moving. The same goes for the train in which you are located and you are feeling no movement.
The problem with heliocentrists is that they assume movement. That is their starting assumption. But the problem is, they have no logical reson for this. Yes, you could also assume that you are actually moving in a train that you do not feel any movement, but you have no real reason for doing so.
And from this assumption, heliocentrists, interpret all the observational facts. And this leads them to the false conclusion that all the observations actually confirm the moving Earth. But they can just as well be explained in the non-moving Earth model. So why pick one, over the other?
Obviously you first have to have independent evidence that we are either moving, or not, to use observational evidence for or against the moving Earth model.
So let's see how this false assumption guides a heliocentrist's thought. DevilsAdvovate claims:
quote:
1. Stellar abberation- apparent yearly motion of all celestial objects in the Earth's sky caused by the Earth's velocity around the Sun.
How does he know that this otion is caused by Earth's motion in the first place? It could just as well be caused by the rotating universe! He has no independent evidence from the observation to be able to prefer one explanation over the other. You see, the observable fact of abberation is equally explainable by both moving and non moving Earth. And this two explanations are polar opposites. So in this case, the observable evidence is NOT evidence for any of thses two positions. It's only an interpretation for either one or the other model. You first have to have evidence independent of the observation that the Earth is either moving or not, and than claim your observational evidence is caused by either moving or non Moving Earth. Untill you have that, your "evidence" is not evidence, but an interpreation. And as we shall see, the same goes for all the so called evidence.
Think of it this way. You are still in that train I was talking about. But now, you discover a hole on the top of the train car! You put your hand through the hole, and guess what? You feel the air passing you! And you conclude, that in fact, yes, the train is moving!
Is this a good conclusion? Well, no, obviously not. Why?
Well, even a primary school logic would tell you that the train could also be standing still, but that it is the wind that is blowing! Because it just happens to be windy today. So you see, the air that you feel on your hand passing it, can be explained by both moving and non moving train model, and both models are polar opposites. So the air that is passing your hadn is not evidence for any model. It's just an interpretation, untill you actually have independent evidence that it is the train that is moving, or standing still. Only that can you claim that the passing air is caused by one of the models.
Do you see now how this applies to the moving and non moving Earth models? It's the same thing.
quote:
2. Parallax of nearby celestial objects due to the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
Again, notice the starting assumption. He claims that the parallax is caused by the moving Earth? But what independent evidenec has he got to claim such a thing? None, obviously. The same can be explained by the stars themselves moving to create the observed parallax.
quote:
3. Doppler affect of planets, stars, etc as Earth orbits the Sun and increase and closes the distance between these objects.
Notice the same starting assumption that the Earth is moving without any independent evidence for it's movement. Do you see how this is actually a form of circular logic?
1.) Assumption is that the Earth is moving.
2.) Observation is that planets are sometimes closer to Earth than other times.
3.) Conclusion is that this is caused because the Earth is moving!
This is circular reasoning because it starts with the assumption that the Earth is moving and uses this assumption to explain the observation that is than claimed to be the evidence for the moving Earth in the first place!
Not only that, but in the Tychonic geocentric model as the Sun goes around the Earth, the other planets go around the Sun. So as they go, they are obviously going to be coming near the Earth at one time, and go farther away from the Earth at other times. So this is also explainable in the non moving Earth model.
quote:
4. Annual observation of various meteor showers i.e. Leonid, etc caused by Earth's orbit crossing the dust trails of past comets and other debris.
Please notice againt he starting assumption that causes this circular reasoning. The starting assumption is that the Earth is moving, and that it's moviement causes Earth to go through dust of meteor showers. Could this alos not be explainable by a rotating universe in which showers of meteors go from one place to another becasue the centrifugal force of the rotating cosmos? And than, this dust passes the Earth? Obviously it can.
So as you can clearly see, as I have said at the beginning, there is no evidence that the Earth is actually moving. All the evidence is actually an interpretation, based on a starting assumption that the Earth is actually moving. So this is basicly circular reasoning.
quote:
Also, it would be helpful if you could see your way clear to abandon the argument that the superficial appearance from the Earth's surface that the sun orbits the Earth is evidence for geocentrism. It sort of takes the argument back to the stone age. That one can be fooled about who is in motion is known to everyone. There's a jarring subway train experience that is probably familiar to most. I can't count the number of times I've been sitting in a New York subway train looking out the window and believing we were beginning to move because the windows of the adjacent train had begun moving by, only to jarringly discover that it was the other train that was moving as it disappears to reveal a stationary platform.
I'm simply requesting, not demanding, that you abandon this argument. You do not have to abandon it, but if you continue to use it then please do not pretend you're unaware that a rotating Earth produces the same apparent motion of the sun in the sky. This would be consistent with the clarity and openness necessary for moving a discussion productively forward.
Actually, I'm not using this as my evidence for geocentrism. I would never use it that way, and that would indeed be like arguing on a stone-age level.
What I'm actually saying is that us not feeling any movement, and seeing other objects orbit around us, is my starting assumption, not evidence. And I believe that it is a logical starting assumption. Just like in a train I explained obeve in ehich you ahd no windows, and you felt no movement.
I use this argument because I'm trying to explain to the heliocentrists that they are using the wrong starting assumption. They are using the starting assumption that the Earth is actually moving from the start! And they have no reason to! Just like in the train with no windows. Yes, it could be moving, but how do you know? You don't, and both for the train, and the Earth you can't just assume that it is moving in the first place, and than use all the observational evidence and interpret them from the moving Earth model, and say that they are actually evidence for the moving Earth. When they can be equally well explained by the model that is the polar opposite of the moving Earth model.
™ Version 4.2