Relativity is wrong...

Yeah not religious.

quote:

---

He also argues from the Bible that it is the earth that is absolutely stable at the relative center of the universe. He writes for the Biblical Astronomer and for the Creation Research Society. Dr. Gerardus D. Bouw also accepts the King James Bible as the inspired word of God for the English-speaking people.

---

Gerardus BouwHis Testimony is a hoot.He may have a doctorate in Astronomy but he has never worked in the field. He has been a computer science professor since 1977. I guess that expalins why his ideas are out of date.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

What the fuck does this mean? Why do we keep attracting the crackpots on here that can't follow logical sentances with logical answers? If this is the case than how can you believe in geocentrism, that is the Earth is the center around which the universe rotates. You contradict yourself. You can't even stick to a single coherent thought or model of how the solar system or universe functions. Yet you want us to adopt your warped, incoherent view of the universe? I am perplexed at your discombobulated mind. I never said it was. There is no absolute frame of reference. The reason why scientists accept that the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth is that the Sun has a greater mass and thus a greater gravitational influence on the Earth and the other planets then then the Earth and other planets have on it. Thus the center of gravitation/mass for the Solar System is closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the rest of the planets. How do we know this?We have measured the diameter of the Earth and all the other planets both through direct ground based observation and by sending spacecraft to these other bodies in the Solar System. We have even sent spacecraft to very close proximities to the Sun. I think if the Sun were smaller than the Earth than these spacecraft would indicate this. A center is a center. It is ludicrous to say something has a center and then say it is not a real center?!? Either something has a center or it does not. It is like saying that a sphere has a center but not a real center. If a sphere does not have a 'real' center than it does not have a center at all.In this picture there is a clear definitive center of mass/gravity however we can rotate the sphere in any direction and therefore it has no absolute frame of reference. We can turn this sphere in any direction and it would look the same. Incorrect, this would only be the case if all the planets lined up on one side of the Sun at one specific time. Otherwise, the barycenter (center of gravity/mass) for the Sun and the rest of the planets in the Solar System shifts or more accurately wabbles about as the planets rotate around the Solar System. Due to its mass, the planet Jupiter causes the greatest deviation of the Sun around the center of mass. BTW, I am the one that originally stated that the center of gravity of the Solar System is not exactly in the middle of the Sun not you. This is not a point of contention with me.Also, you just contradicted yourself in saying that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. If the Earth is the center how can the center of gravity be so close to the Sun? By all intensive purposes it is if you are just looking at the frame of reference of the Solar System by itself. Saying the sun is the center of the solar system is a rough generalization of the model of the solar system since no other celestial body is closer to this center of mass/gravity than the Sun and everything in the solar system revolves around this center of mass.Now it seems you are trying to back peddle your way out of your previously advocated geocentric view of the universe. Keep back peddling and you will concur with 100% of the scientific communities acceptance of a Sun centered Solar System. Show me a professional scientist who works in the field of astronomy for the last 100 years that does not agree that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun. How does saying everything moves in relation to each other contradict that the Earth is revolving around the Sun? This is like saying that because to a race car drive it appears he is stationary and everything is moving backwards that he is not really going around in circles on a racetrack. It all depends on our frame of reference. Einstein's TOR did not say there is no frames of reference but rather there is not absolute frame of reference. If we scale back our frame of reference of the racetrack we indeed see that it to is moving because it is rotating along with the Earth as well as revolving around the Sun and the Sun is itself along with the Solar System revolving around the Milky Way galaxie etc. It all depends on what frame of reference we are using.If we use the frame of reference of just the solar system than we can indeed state that the planets are orbiting the Sun (or near it enough to generalize it as such). No, the 500,000 km away is the maximum deviation of the Sun if all the planets line up on one side like I said previously. True, if the universe is truely boundless (endless). I am not sure if science has uncategorically determined if this is the case or not maybe cavediver can help out with this. If this means the Earth is the center of the universe not just the solar system than you are correct. True by your definition of the term geocentrism.BTW, when we talk about centers of gravity we are basically saying that we are considering the gravitational forces of relatively nearby and/or very large objects, objects whose gravitational force are vertually neglible due to there size and/or distance are basically taken out of the equation since the nearby/large objects gravitational forces nullify (cancels out) these other gravitational effects. They did not use the scientific process 500 years ago. They weren't even called scientists but rather natural philosophers and the like. Science has been much refined in the last 500 years and now has an extremely high success rate. Do you use a car, computer, microwave, cell phone, etc. Than you might want to thank the scientists who made the discoveries necessary for you to enjoy these luxuries. When did I say the majority is ALWAYS right? However considering the success of the heliocentric model of the solar system you do have to take this into consideration. That is only true if you considering the entire frame of reference of the cosmos not if you are looking at small frames of reference i.e. that of the Solar System. Enjoy the seclusion then. I said red shifting is one method of measuring distance and speed. Standard candles is another method which supports and does not contradict the measuring rod of red shifting.So what is your explanation for red shifting. BTW, hypotheses are useless if they cannot make predictions. So are you admiting that you could be wrong?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

quote:

---

Yeah not religious.

---

Yeah not religious what? Bouw can have any religious ideas for all I care. This has absolutly no impact on me. Neither does it have any impact on the scientists that derived the equations that a geocentric universe can work without braking down. Besides you are going off topic.

You are using him to support your arguments. Where he gets his arguments is very relevant to the debate if you are using him as a source. He obviously is deriving evidence to support his beliefs of a geocentric universe and the infallibility of the bible.That is not how science works.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

And? Heh, do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Try this experiment: Make object A (the sun) orbit a fictional point on your floor (the centre of the universe), then make object B (the earth) orbit object A. You're telling me you can't see them both orbiting different points? Weird assumption, and not based on reality at all. Everywhere we look. We see moons orbiting the planets, we see planets orbiting stars, except, in your case, the earth. What's your explanation for this? Why is the earth the only object in the universe not orbiting a more massive object, yet a more massive object is orbiting it?

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

What the fuck does this mean?

---

Figure it out for yourself.

quote:

---

If this is the case than how can you believe in geocentrism, that is the Earth is the center around which the universe rotates. You contradict yourself.

---

I'm not accepting this view as true. I'm just describing it to you. This would be the case if relativity were true. But I do not accept it.

quote:

---

I never said it was. There is no absolute frame of reference. The reason why scientists accept that the planets of the solar system orbit the Sun and not the Earth is that the Sun has a greater mass and thus a greater gravitational influence on the Earth and the other planets then then the Earth and other planets have on it. Thus the center of gravitation/mass for the Solar System is closer to the center of the Sun than it is to the rest of the planets. How do we know this?

​

We have measured the diameter of the Earth and all the other planets both through direct ground based observation and by sending spacecraft to these other bodies in the Solar System. We have even sent spacecraft to very close proximities to the Sun. I think if the Sun were smaller than the Earth than these spacecraft would indicate this.

---

You can't measure the size of something you are not standing on, or have never came in touch with. Becasue you do not know how far away it is from you.

quote:

---

A center is a center. It is ludicrous to say something has a center and then say it is not a real center?!? Either something has a center or it does not. It is like saying that a sphere has a center but not a real center. If a sphere does not have a 'real' center than it does not have a center at all.

​

In this picture there is a clear definitive center of mass/gravity however we can rotate the sphere in any direction and therefore it has no absolute frame of reference. We can turn this sphere in any direction and it would look the same.

---

But in your view, the universe does not look like that, thus has no center.

quote:

---

Incorrect, this would only be the case if all the planets lined up on one side of the Sun at one specific time. Otherwise, the barycenter (center of gravity/mass) for the Sun and the rest of the planets in the Solar System shifts or more accurately wabbles about as the planets rotate around the Solar System. Due to its mass, the planet Jupiter causes the greatest deviation of the Sun around the center of mass. BTW, I am the one that originally stated that the center of gravity of the Solar System is not exactly in the middle of the Sun not you. This is not a point of contention with me.

---

I am correct in saying that the center of solar system is relative if relativity is true. You are the one who said the Sun is the center, which is obviously false. Yes it can shift more or less, but the point is, the Sun itself is not the center. The maximum distance the center ever comes from the Sun is 500,000 km, but yes, it can be closer. So how ever you look at it, you were wrong in saying that the Sun is teh center of solar system.

quote:

---

Also, you just contradicted yourself in saying that the Earth is the center of the solar system and the universe. If the Earth is the center how can the center of gravity be so close to the Sun?

---

No I didn't, I was only explaining how things would work if relativity was true.

quote:

---

By all intensive purposes it is if you are just looking at the frame of reference of the Solar System by itself. Saying the sun is the center of the solar system is a rough generalization of the model of the solar system since no other celestial body is closer to this center of mass/gravity than the Sun and everything in the solar system revolves around this center of mass.

---

Including the Sun. The Sun also revolves around that center of mass. So saying that Sun is the center is wrong.

quote:

---

Now it seems you are trying to back peddle your way out of your previously advocated geocentric view of the universe. Keep back peddling and you will concur with 100% of the scientific communities acceptance of a Sun centered Solar System.

---

No, again, I do not accept this view. I'm just explainig it to you. I'm explainig how it would work if relativity was true.

quote:

---

Show me a professional scientist who works in the field of astronomy for the last 100 years that does not agree that the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun.

---

Every single one. They are either relativists that believe that boh the Earth and the Sun orbit the center of mass of our solar system, or are geocentrists but are not outspoken.

quote:

---

How does saying everything moves in relation to each other contradict that the Earth is revolving around the Sun? This is like saying that because to a race car drive it appears he is stationary and everything is moving backwards that he is not really going around in circles on a racetrack. It all depends on our frame of reference. Einstein's TOR did not say there is no frames of reference but rather there is not absolute frame of reference. If we scale back our frame of reference of the racetrack we indeed see that it to is moving because it is rotating along with the Earth as well as revolving around the Sun and the Sun is itself along with the Solar System revolving around the Milky Way galaxie etc. It all depends on what frame of reference we are using.

---

Becasue that means that earth is revolving around the common center of mass in the solar system together with the Sun. And Sun not being the center, but very close to it.

quote:

---

If we use the frame of reference of just the solar system than we can indeed state that the planets are orbiting the Sun (or near it enough to generalize it as such).

---

Than just say that it's near the Sun, and not the Sun itself that everything in our solar system is orbiting.

quote:

---

No, the 500,000 km away is the maximum deviation of the Sun if all the planets line up on one side like I said previously.

---

Yes, it can be closer, but the point remains that the Sun is never the center.

quote:

---

True, if the universe is truely boundless (endless). I am not sure if science has uncategorically determined if this is the case or not maybe cavediver can help out with this.

​

If this means the Earth is the center of the universe not just the solar system than you are correct.

​

True by your definition of the term geocentrism.

​

BTW, when we talk about centers of gravity we are basically saying that we are considering the gravitational forces of relatively nearby and/or very large objects, objects whose gravitational force are vertually neglible due to there size and/or distance are basically taken out of the equation since the nearby/large objects gravitational forces nullify (cancels out) these other gravitational effects.

---

Yes, we agree on this.

quote:

---

They did not use the scientific process 500 years ago. They weren't even called scientists but rather natural philosophers and the like. Science has been much refined in the last 500 years and now has an extremely high success rate. Do you use a car, computer, microwave, cell phone, etc. Than you might want to thank the scientists who made the discoveries necessary for you to enjoy these luxuries.

---

Of course they used the scientific process. But it was different than than it is now. It is constantly changing. It doesn't mean they were not doing science in those days. Everything we have today was built on those foundations. If we would say that those people are not scientists than let's just get rid of Newton's gravity and say that everyone who builds upon it is building upon pseudo-science. This is clearly the wrong way to look at advencement in science.

quote:

---

When did I say the majority is ALWAYS right?

---

By saying that we should listen to the majority of scientists you assume they are always right. It's a logical necessity. If you are not assuming that, than there is no logical necessity to listen to them blindly.

quote:

---

However considering the success of the heliocentric model of the solar system you do have to take this into consideration.

---

What success? The only reason it was advanced over the geocentric one is because it explained the phases of Venus. Which geocentric model also describes. But this was supposed to be the ultimate evidence against geocentrism.So what success are you talking about?

quote:

---

That is only true if you considering the entire frame of reference of the cosmos not if you are looking at small frames of reference i.e. that of the Solar System.

---

Why? No reason whatsoever. You can pick whatever frame you want.

quote:

---

I said red shifting is one method of measuring distance and speed. Standard candles is another method which supports and does not contradict the measuring rod of red shifting.

---

Standard candle is what redshift is calibrated on. It's the luminosity of an object.

quote:

---

So what is your explanation for red shifting. BTW, hypotheses are useless if they cannot make predictions.

---

There are lot's of explanations for redshift. One of them is that light from stars is coliding with H2 and thus slowing down.

quote:

---

We also showed that the presence of large amounts of the hard-to-detect molecular hydrogen in interstellar space could provide an alternative explanation to the Big Bang theory, by explaining the observed redshift as a result of the delayed propagation of light through space, caused by the collision of photons with interstellar matter.

---

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift

quote:

---

You are using him to support your arguments. Where he gets his arguments is very relevant to the debate if you are using him as a source.

---

Yes, that is true. That is why you should ahve bothered to read this.http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1536/models.gifHe specifically mentions that none of his sources is a geocentric Christian.

quote:

---

He obviously is deriving evidence to support his beliefs of a geocentric universe and the infallibility of the bible.

---

... from non Christians. He is deriving his evidence from non-geocentric non-Christians.

quote:

---

That is not how science works.

---

Oh, well, off to hell with Newton the creationist and Bible follower, and his Laws of Motion, and gravity...We can't use them anymore since they are tainted by the Bible...

Please provide the original source.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

And?

---

Just saying that light bending can be explained without relativity and space-time.

quote:

---

Heh, do you even know what a logical fallacy is? Try this experiment: Make object A (the sun) orbit a fictional point on your floor (the centre of the universe), then make object B (the earth) orbit object A. You're telling me you can't see them both orbiting different points? Weird assumption, and not based on reality at all.

---

But you see them moving! I asked you relative to which object are you statinary. You said to both. That is not possible. If you were statinary to both, you would see them both stationary. You can only be stationray to one if one is still and the other is orbiting around it.

quote:

---

Everywhere we look. We see moons orbiting the planets, we see planets orbiting stars, except, in your case, the earth. What's your explanation for this? Why is the earth the only object in the universe not orbiting a more massive object, yet a more massive object is orbiting it?

---

Again how do you know the Sun is more massive? But even if it was no matter, I explained it by Mach's principle and a rotating cosmos. Read my responses to Modulous on the previous page.

quote:

---

Please provide the original source.

---

Original source for what? The cited papers? I don't have them. I actually tried to find the Rosser lecture few days ago mentioned in the book, but it was printed in 1964. A bit too outdated for me to be able to find it online.

So you post a GIf file with no attribution and we are to accept it without any questions. Unless you can show this is from Bouwe, then it means nothing. It might as well as be a Kenyan birth certificate.Also, this little snippet does not provide any evidence for a geocentric model. All it does is provide evidence that it is possible. This is a classic ID and creationist error. Anything is possible, but is it probable.That the sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning is possible, but it is not probable.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

So you post a GIf file with no attribution and we are to accept it without any questions. Unless you can show this is from Bouwe, then it means nothing. It might as well as be a Kenyan birth certificate.

---

You are kidding me right? I already said that that screenshot was from the "Geocentricity Primer" book by Bouw.Yes, this here GIF: http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/1536/models.gifIs from this here book from Bouw: http://www.geocentricity.com/...s/a_geocentricity_primer.pdfIt's on the page 116, called "Other Geocentric Models".And also go to this page: http://www.geocentricity.com/shop/books/primer.htmlSo you can see the cover of the book and see his name on it.

quote:

---

Also, this little snippet does not provide any evidence for a geocentric model. All it does is provide evidence that it is possible. This is a classic ID and creationist error. Anything is possible, but is it probable.

---

It shows that geocentrism is as probable as heliocentrism, and that it works the same way. If you want evidence for geocentrism, than start reading the topic from the beginning.Actualy saying that possible is probable equals it happened, is an evolutionist tactic in which abiogenesis is supposed to be proven true.Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

Where does the Theory of Evolution say anything about abiogenisis? No the writings of the people he mentions say nothing about the probability. As a matter of fact I do not think any of them were Geocentrists. I would love to hear some evidence that they were. Please show where any of these people advocated for a geocentric view of the world. Also, it would be nice to know what their standing in the scientific community is. It seems Bouwe has taken there research and modified it to show evidence for his preconceived beliefs.Can you show that these people were advocating geocentrism? Just because Bouwe says it doesnt make it true. I cannot find anything on them where they advocate geocentrism.Again it does not show that geocentrism is as probable as heliocentrism, it merely shows that geocentrism is possible.Edited by Theodoric, : spelling

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Do you deny the existence of trigonometry, surveying, or two eyes in mammals?Or is it all three?

---

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman RushdieThis rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

Then you need to show how this is possible. Your model does not address any of the problem areas that arise with this scenario.Yet you give no reason why the Sun should move up and down. There should be a reason why the sun, an object that posses 90% of all the mass in the solar system exhibits this property. Yet no other objects in the solar system do the same thing. I've noticed with others you try and claim that the Sun's rotation is dependant on the rotation of the Universe. So I am curious. Just how big do you think the Universe is? Do you accept the standard 13.7 billion light-years?Edited by rueh, : No reason given.

---

'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