Relativity is wrong...

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

Hello SO, Negative, the Earth rotating on it's axis gives rise to day and night. Not summer and winter. In your post #65 you state. Which would mean the seasons are entirely dependant on the distance from the sun. However since the two hemispheres expierence winter and summer seperate from each other, we know this can not be the case. Instead the seasons are defined by, the tilt of Earth's axis relative to the plane of revolution.Abe: In regards to the link you submitted. I have nothing to say about that foolishness. Unless you can explain why, 1. A massive object like the Sun would be orbiting a smaller object like the Earth. 2. Why all the other planets orbit the Sun and how Earth is the exception to that rule. 3. Why the Sun should have shuch an exagerated vertical movement on it's orbital plane. 4. How this diagram explains the error of paralax for other stars. 5. How this diagram explains retrograde motion for other planets. Edited by rueh, : No reason given.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

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

Hello SO OK, no force present to describe the motion of a spiraling Sun. The phases of Venus. The paralax of distant stars. Retrograde motion of planets. Observations of other solar systems. Those are just a few. I realise that other posters have already brought these up, however I fail to see anywhere in your posts where you answer any of these problems that are present for a geocentric universe. You mean other than the observational evidence, provided by WMAP. Where exactly do all the other stars in our Galaxy fit, if the universe is only twice the size of our solar system? Where do all the other Galaxies fit? Because of the mass of the Sun. You would need a very large force to cause the Sun to change directions. Yet you do not propose any such force.

---

'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

Ah, the grand unified theory of duct tape. Proving once again, that there is nothing that duct tape cannot do.

---

'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

Hello SO, Ok you are going to have to show me where you found this info. I haven't been able to locate anywhere that says the moon follows a path that resembles the diagram you referenced towards the Suns apparent movement. Your explanations refer us to antiquated ideas of the solar system. These have all been shown to be incorrect. In the Tychonian system, Tycho himself states that if parallax of fixed stars were to be observed that his model would be falsified and that the Earth would indeed be orbiting the Sun. So if you were to be intellectually honest the simplest solution is that the Earth does indeed orbit the Sun. Instead you inject a rotating and wobbling universal shell, without any evidence to show that such a reality exists or how such motion for the universe is produced and sustained. These antiquated systems have all been abandoned for the very fact that they were all shown to be incorrect, and that Newtonian laws gave a much better explanation of the observations than previous systems could. Those Newtonian physics have since been shown to be lacking as well. The simple fact is that relativity makes better predictions and has borne out through experimentation and repeatability more than any other to date. In reference to your denial of extra solar planets I refer you to The Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia — Catalog Listing . This is an updated list of all the extra solar planets found to date. They are out there so I don't really see any reason to debate this point with you. CD has already shown you a picture of the Hubbell deep space field and pictures of distant galaxies from Hubbell are easily found on the internet. There really is no point in denying something that anyone can obviously see. No you did not explain this force. You said it was the same force that made the moon spiral, without showing that the moon is spiraling or how this force operates in order to exert such a force.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