Relativity is wrong...

He's posted heliocentric nonsense on a white supremacist website. He's beyond an idiot - he's a tumor that should be removed from the site. Debating him won't do any good, and racists should have no place here.

lol...yes.

For the answer to that question, simply look at his avatar.He's a geocentrist.

Tell the truth - every time you consider actually refuting geocentrism, a hypothesis that hasn't been seriously considered by any respected scientist in living memory, you begin laughing so uncontrollably that typing out a coherent post becomes impossible.I mean, that's what happens to me. I assume others must have similar reactions.And since I've decided not to reply to SO, the racist douchenozzle from Stormfront, sitting back and laughing as he trolls his insanity across the forum is entirely acceptable/

That's a rather...zen...outlook Personally, I simply cannot respect various points of view. I can respect the individual and that person's right to hold a view, but if their view is complete nonsense or unethical garbage I'll hold no respect for it.In this case, I'm just going to sit back and laugh.

It protects his brain from the drag of the aether as it spins on the axis of the Earth.

That's not so hard to model, since we're already throwing all of our understanding of gravitational mechanics out the window anyway.As the Sun orbits the Earth each day, the relative angle of orbit changes slightly, such that the Sun orbits further to the South during half of the year, and North during the rest, causing the seasons.Why bother with a mechanism for the North-South movement of the Sun, when we're already discarding everything else?You could make a model of cosmological motion with the Earth being stationary very easily; after all, it's how it looks to us when we simply look up at the sky. The Sun already moves, it simply moves between North and South as it orbits the Earth.The problem with geocentrism is that it's based entirely on self-importance, and requires ignoring observational evidence. We have directly observed that, in every other case, objects of lower mass orbit objects of higher mass. Exoplanets all orbit their stars; all of our system's other planets orbit the Sun even in a geocentric model; all moons orbit their respective planets. The assumption that Earth is the center of everything is nothing more than an absurdly self-centered position (literally), and it makes modeling the movements of teh planets more difficult because it requires new mechanisms to explain why the Earth is different from everything else we observe, for the specific motion of the Sun, etc.

I am the center of the Universe. The Sun doesn't revolve around the Earth - it orbits me. When I walk, I am stationary - it is the Earth that moves. The rest of you move about upon its surface, but I am stationary.All of the scientific models that show the Earth orbiting the Sun with the other planets are completely wrong, because they assume that I am moving.SO's geocentric view is wrong also - he not only assumes a stationary Earth, he assumes that I am moving.I can see the evidence of this with my own eyes. I move the Earth as I walk until the correct place has moved to my location. The Sun, stars and planets all move around me, and their motions can be modeled according to my stationary point of reference.You should all stop believing what you read in "official" sources. They don't know the truth, because they're all working off of faulty assumptions.

This whole discussion is highly amusing.So admits that his choice of the Earth as the center is arbitrary: If the choice of a center is truly arbitrary, that means there is no center. For example, there is no center on the surface of a balloon. Yet he still argues that the Earth is the center, not only of our Solar System, but of the entire Universe.He proceeds to argue that, since the precise center of mass is not actually located inside the Sun, saying that the planets orbit the Sun is false. This despite the fact that the actual center of mass is obviously governed primarily by the Sun itself since it by far out-masses the rest of teh solar system at once, and the resulting center of mass is roughly 0.000220591184 times the distance between the Earth and the Sun, making it the astronomical equivalent of claiming that, since the Earth is not perfectly sphere-shaped, saying the Earth is round is completely false. So clearly has no concept of the relative accuracy of statements.More importantly, his "model" requires the addition of multiple new mechanisms that he simply handwaves away. What makes the Sun orbit the Earth, while all of the other planets orbit the Sun? Why do all extrasolar planets orbit their respective stars, as shown by direct observation? What specific force does he refer to with his "spinning shell?" What observational evidence do we have that such a shell exists? What force causes the Sun's orbit of the Earth to change such that it moves between North and South to cause the seasons?The heliocentric model explains all of this quite neatly and with sufficient precision to launch probes across the solar system. Gravity and inertia are directly observed and are the forces that hold teh solar system (and basically everything else) together. All orbits are the result of gravitational forces, and so the dominant center of mass is the center of any given orbit. Moons orbit their respective planets while the planets each orbit the Sun, even if the specific center of mass changes slightly due to the fact that multiple massive objects are involved. No unobserved forces or structures are required, and the predictions of the model have proven to be highly accurate.SO's geocentric model requires the addition of innumerable mechanisms to explain the epicycles of astrological motion, none of which are supported by observational evidence elsewhere (for instance, while I can demonstrate gravity immediately by dropping something off of my desk, the forces involved in epicycles curiously seem to only function for that specific task and cannot be replicated here on Earth).While it is certainly possible to model the entire Universe while arbitrarily choosing the Earth as the center, it is not the best model because it takes parsimony, bends it over a table, and roughly sodomizes it with a tire iron.I'm sure we've all taken tests where we were required to choose the best answer, where some answers were not technically wrong but were less accurate than others. The geocentric model is very clearly less accurate than the currently accepted models of the Universe, so much so that suggesting geocentrism to an actual physicist results in laughter and scorn.The most amusing bit is that this backwards-thinking ignoramus actually still believes he's right, and that relativity, widely renowned as one of the best-tested and most accurate theories in any scientific discipline, is somehow wrong. If her were able to argue this point successfully, he would be heralded as the man who falsified Einstein and receive the Nobel Prize for physics. His performance here has demonstrated why this hasn't happened, and will never happen.

Not so good with numbers, is he?

Since SO doesn't want to do math, I did some.Distance from the Earth to the Sun: 149,598,000,000 metersThis makes the Sun's presumed orbit around the Earth have a circumference of 9.3995e11 meters.This means that, given a 24 hour day, the Sun is moving at 10,879,073.56 meters/second.That's 3.6% of the speed of light, btw.The mass of the Sun is 1.99e30 kgCentripetal force = m*v^2/rThe force that the Earth would need to exert on the Sun to keep it bound given that mass and speed would be 1.57e33 Newtons.The Earth and Sun only exert 3.98e13 Newtons of gravitational force on each other.That's twenty orders of magnitude. Where does this extra force come from?If the Earth is indeed the center, and the Sun came flying by at a distance of 1AU at a speed of 3.6% c, would the Sun orbit the Earth? Or would the Earth be torn from it's stationary position like a golf ball tied to a rapidly moving bowling ball?What anchors the Earth is its position as the "center?" Is there an anti-Sun that exerts an equal but opposite force on the Earth while orbiting on the exact opposite side of the Sun, while remaining completely invisible and not gravitationally affecting any other body in the solar system?SO claims that the "forces balance out." What forces? How do they balance? Oh wait...you don't have any numbers and you won't do math, so you can't actually show that the "forces balance out." We have to take your word for it.Not that any of this really matters. It took me more time to type this than to do the research and math, so no big deal. Dr. Adequate and others have already annihilated SO's position so thoroughly that I just wanted to rub it in with some more large numbers.

Part of the problem is that you still can model the Universe while choosing the Earth as its arbitrary immobile center. It is compeltely possible to do so, just as it is possible (as I alluded in my sarcastic reply earlier) to model the Universe with you, personally, as an arbitrary immobile center. When you walk, you are stationary, and the Earth moves beneath you, etc.This causes untold issues with parsimony, but it's not actually falsifiable. Innumerable additional forces and factors would need to be introduced to actually explain the bizarre motions of planets and stars in such a model, or to explain why you are the immobile center of the Universe and I am not given that we are functionally identical so far as astronomy and physics are concerned.SO's issue is that he simply doesn't care about parsimony. he doesn't care that his hypothesis means that gravity doesn;t work the way we think it does, that it has bizarre exceptions. He doesn't care that the Sun would have to be moving at a significant fraction of c to orbit the Earth every 24 hours given its known distance from the Earth, or how much force would be needed to keep such a fast-moving Sun anchored to the Earth rather than simply throwing the Earth like a satellite in a gravity-assisted slingshot. His response is little more than "the aether did it" or "the stars aren't actually stars, they're suspended inside of a shell I have no evidence for that rotates in a bizarre fashion around the Earth for reasons I cannot explain using mechanisms I cannot describe, and you can't say I'm wrong because you weren't there.I maintain the position that DevilsAdvocate liked so much earlier: So far the commonly accepted models of the Universe, including relativity, have proven to be far more parsimonious than SO's fantasies while also remaining extremely accurate.

Where is this shell? How have you detected its presence? Surely you have some corroborating observational evidence that forces you to include it while adhering to parsimony? What is it made of? How does it anchor the Sun, and why does it move in such a bizarre way (moving "up" and "down" relative to a few degrees off of the Earth's axis)?Why does the Sun, whose gravitational force is observationally proven fact, not yank the Earth out of it's stationary resting place like a moving bowling ball tethered to a stationary golf ball?Why are we able to travel beyond the Sun? For example, modeling the Sun's orbit around the Earth, our space probes Voyager 1 and 2 (among others) are at certain points of the year about 15 light-hours distant from the Earth, on the other side of the Sun. If there's a shell, how did those probes get on the other side of it without detecting it? They're about to leave the solar system completely by the way (by 2015 as I recall), with no "shell" in sight.Is your "shell" immaterial and undetectable? How do you know it's there then? Why is your extremely complicated model that introduces a plethora of unexplained mechanisms and new astronomical bodies that are otherwise undetected a better model than the one currently accepted by basically every astronomer on the planet?What reason is there to model the Earth as the center of the Universe, as opposed to me? Or Mars? Or the Sun? Or an arbitrary point a random distance away in a random direction? Is your choice to consider the Earth the center of everything completely arbitrary, or do you have an observation, empirically tested and independently verified reason to consider the Earth the center of the Universe?