Relativity is wrong...

I also mentioned the Sun or are you going to argue that the Sun is less than 91 million miles from the Earth?How do you explain that Venus is never more than 46 degrees away from the Sun and Mercury even a small degree angle from the Sun? Or how do you explain how the phases of Venus, the Moon and every other planetary body in the solar system fit perfectly in a heliocentric model of the solar system? How does that fit into your geocentric model? I am not going to argue bare links. You will have to explain it yourself. Again I am not going to argue bare links.How can you know they are touching each other? Explain. I am all ears. You would have to chuck out all of astronomy, physics, and any other scientific research and discoveries for the last 500 years to adopt your warped sense of reality.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Well, in the best Relativity fashion, doesn't it depend on your reference frame? If the entire universe were rotating around the Earth, and it was sitting perfectly still, wouldn't the math and all the phenomena be exactly the same? Isn't the Earth going around the sun, the sun going around the galactic center, and everything else moving just based on a reference frame outside of the solar system?Or am I completely misunderstanding parts of relativity here?

No shit.You don't respong to the refutations of your position either. All you do is say: "Nuh-uh" and then jump to the next point You're playing the "prove it to me" game. When someone offers proof that isn't 100% you jump all over it but when they do offer 100% proof, you just ignore it or hand wave it away, ahem...the LHC and Coriolis Effect.Anyone else in this thread could just as easily play your game with you in arguing that were actually in The Matrix and not sitting at computers at all.Its really fucking ghey.

Yes. For it is relativity that states that larger masses curve spacetime more than smaller masses. So, the sun will curve spacetime more than earth, and so the earth orbits the sun.Edited by Huntard, : Spellings

---

I hunt for the truth

If this were true, than the entire Earth should experience winter and summer at the same time. That is not the case however. Due to the inclination of the Earth's axis one hemisphere is in summer while the other is in winter.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
The industrial revolution, flipped a bitch on evolution.-NOFX

I know that, but from a theoretical framepoint, if the sun's larger "spacetime dimple" were to be assumed to be moving around Earth's "spacetime dimple", and everything else were still moving around the sun, would the equations (despite maybe being a little more complex) come to different solutions? I agree the earth moves around the sun, but imagine a wheel spinning around the hub. If, as a mental exercise, you held a point of the wheel in a static position, then rotated, the hub, the bike, the garage, the Earth, and the universe around that one point, wouldn't you still come to the same solutions to equations about the movement of things? It's simpler to just say the wheel is spinning around the hub, but aside from the simpler math, is there any objective reason to say one over the other?Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.

Um, that is what science is all about. Explaining natural phenomena based on experimentation and observation and then making predictions based on these explanations. If the predictions fail, than you modify or chuck that hypothesis out the window and come up with another one.Or should we base all of the scientific revolutions and technilogical advances on your make shit up as you go philosophy. Are you going to next deny that we visited the moon or sent spacecraft to nearly all the planets in the solar system? Why not just deny your own existence and be done with it. Can you see the wind? How do you know it exists?Pssst, [whisper] because you can see the effects of the wind on other matter. The same principle applies to curved space.Ok, I am done with this merry go round, have fun with your geocentric existence. I and most sane people will enjoy the fruits of science and technilogical advancement.

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

Do you realize that this means that, to believe this, you must concede that the earth moves after all? If the sun's orbit around the earth explains the seasons, it means it orbits the earth in one year. Yet we see the sun rise and set every day. The only explanation for that must be that the earth rotates on it's own axis every 24 hours. Or, "eppur si muove", as our old friend Galileo would have it. (Although not quite the way he meant it.)

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Holy shit! You're right. I didn't even think of that.How could the sun going around the Earth and being closer or further throughout the year explain the seasons if the sun is going around the Earth every day!That's awesome. I bet it never crossed SO's mind before. It just goes to show that instead of actually thinking his position through, he's just parroting anti-science websites and playing the "prove it" game.

Hi Perdition, If I understand the question correctly, I believe the answer is found in Newton's law of universal gravitation.

quote:

---

Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses

---

So I believe the math is the same where:

• F is the magnitude of the gravitational force between the two point masses,
• G is the gravitational constant,
• m1 is the mass of the first point mass,
• m2 is the mass of the second point mass, and
• r is the distance between the two point masses.

However, I don't think the physical phenomena will be the same.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

Yes. For then you would have to explain why in ALL other instances, things would orbit more massive things, EXCEPT in the case of the Earth. I don't think that can be explained with math (I might be wrong thoug, I'm no math wiz)

---

I hunt for the truth

Very true. It would require special pleading to argue that this is actually how things are, but mathematically, and as a thought experiment, it seems like there would be little way to dofferentiate between one scenaro and the other, with the exception that the math would be more complex in my thought experiment universe.It seemed an interesting idea considering the geocentrism of our new friend. If you can argue why this best-case (IMHO) scenario for geo-centrism doesn't hold much water, then I would think SO has nothing much to come back with other than, "but I don't want to be logical or rational, I like my irrational prejudices!"

Wrong again.

It is all about the tilt of the Earth's axis. Many people believe that the temperature changes because the Earth is closer to the sun in summer and farther from the sun in winter. In fact, the Earth is farthest from the sun in July and is closest to the sun in January!

​

Why is it hot in summer and cold in winter? | Library of Congress

If you can't get these basic facts correct why should we give any credence to anything you say?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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.

Yes. Not only is his position contrary to observed facts, it's also internally inconsistent. It would be interesting to see him wriggle his way out of this one.ABE: although Rahvin does a good job of it...Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.