Relativity is wrong...

quote:

---

Sorry, but that makes no sense at all. We look out into the cosmos and what we observe, without exception, are planets and stars moving through space and time. Our only logical starting point, therefore, is that all planets and stars move through space and time.

---

What we actually see, is that all objects are going in a circle. Where is the center, we don't know. But it seems that the center is the Earth.

quote:

---

To propose otherwise suggests a predisposed notion that planet earth ought to be at the centre of the universe rather than any rational analysis of what is observed, hence your opening statement, Because if we were at the center of a rotating cosmos

---

Do you see stars and other planets going in a straight line? No, no you don't. You see them going in a circle. Do you not see the Sun going around the Earth? Does in not orbit us once every day? Do you not see that? Yes, you do. You do not see the Sun just moving anywhere. We see the Sun circling the Earth every single day.The same goes for the Moon. Does it not? Or are you saying that it is the Earth that is going around the Moon? Obviously it's the Moon that's going around the Earth. And why would the same not apply to the Sun.

quote:

---

The paper does not even mention a shell. How can it take account of any forces exerted by a shell without mentioning it? What am I missing here?

---

Of course it does not mention the shell! That's in the other paper. This one explains how the physics of a Machian universe work. And they work just fine.

quote:

---

Newtonian gravity combined with Newtons second law would not have a static Earth at the centre of the universe. Even if it started out in the centre. It would move as the forces of other orbitting bodies acted upon it.

---

That's what you say. The Lense-Thirring effect says that we would have the same physics as we have today. Not only that, but we would have explanations for coriolis forces too.

quote:

---

"it... turns out that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies, quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail experiment... If one rotates [a heavy shell of matter] relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell; that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around (with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity)."

---

This comes from the Mach's principle that Einstein incorporated in his theory of relativity.Mach's principle - Wikipedia

quote:

---

None of this explains how the Earth remains fixed at the centre of the Universe.
F=ma=GMm/r^2 - Newtons law of gravitation and Newtons 2nd law combined.

​

Even if the earth starts at the centre of the universe the ever changing directions of the gravitational forces exerted by the bodies (Sun , moon etc. etc.) acting on the Earth as they orbit would cause a force on the Earth which would cause it to move. Even a slight force.

​

Thus it would not stay at the centre. Unless you can explain otherwise?

---

Imagine a very heavy object. A block of steel. Now, if you need exactly 1,000 N of force to move it, and you only use 1 N of force, will you move the object? No, obviously not. All the other orbiting objects in the universe are exerting too little force on Earth to move it anywhere.Now, since you say this can not work, I want you to show me how a relativistic space, and heliocentric universe can. Show me equations that model the universe and show that it won't fall apart.

quote:

---

Who is saying anything about a heliocentric universe? Theonly thing heliocentric is the solar system. The entire milky way galaxy is not the center, The entire galactic cluster, of which the Milky Way & the Andromeda galaxy are part of, is not the center. Where is the center? Unknown. But it definitely is not the earth. The earth is nothing but a miniscule planet revolving around a miniscule star in a average galaxy.

---

Acentric or heliocentric, I don't care what you call it. I want to see how relativity explains why it won't fall apart.And do you have any evidence that Earth is just a miniscule planet revolving around a miniscule star in a average galaxy? You said that the Earth is DEFINITELY not the center. Well, where is you DEFINITE evidence?

quote:

---

I wanted to let you know as early as possible today about your membership status here at EvC Forum. As you recall, you were at risk of permanent suspension. That is no longer the case.

---

Great, I'm glad we worked this out.Anyway, I just wanted to say that this will be my last post here for about a week or so. I have exams coming up, and I really have to study. When I come back I will give detailed responses to everyone's post.So, I'll see you all in a week. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Good luck with the exams. I'm sure you're ready but a little luck doesn't hurt either.

---

Thanks, but, as fate would have it, I didn't have enough luck this time!

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.

quote:

---

So in your model of the universe, you choose to place the earth at the centre and have everything else revolve around it. What, therefore, would you expect to observe if you were to be transported to another planet, in some far flung corner of the universe? How would what you observe differ from what you see when you look out into the skies every night on this planet?

---

You would see other planets moving. And you would also see the Earth rotating. The Earth's rotating would actually be caused by your planet's movement arounf the Earth.

quote:

---

And we see exactly the same phenomena of celestial objects going around in circles on the moon, on Mars, and every other celestial body that rotates.

​

However, we do not see this effect from spacecraft, etc that are not rotating around an axis.

​

Please explain.

---

You are not supposed to see it because the said spacecraft is not orbiting the Earth. It has a different path and therefore a different reference frame. If it is going in the different direction that the rotation of the universe, than no, you wont' observe what you expent. If the spacecraft takes the referene frame of the Sun, you are going to see the Earth orbit the Sun. It's very simple really.

quote:

---

Oh yes, I already know, the mystical undetectable revolving universal shell which you can provide no evidence of its existance.

​

If you cannot provide evidence for its existence, guess what. It probably doesn't exist.

---

Just because you refuse to read my posts in full doesn't mean I didn't provide the evidence and expalined it houndreds of times already.Read this:EvC Forum: Message Peek

quote:

---

Evidence is wasted on you.

​

We have provided evidence throughout this entire thread. You just choose to ignore it.

​

Go back and reread all the posts and you will see the evidence.

---

I do not want to go through this again. You showed me interpretations. Go and read the my last reply to the Admin. I explained in full detail why your evidence is based on circular logic. And is at best an interpretation, and not evidence.

quote:

---

The procession of stars through the sky every night. What I mean is that if you observed the stars every night you would see that the same stars do not show up in the same position at the same time every night. You will se a slow procession of stars as time goes by. That is each star rises 4 minutes earlier each night, about 2 hours earlier in a month.

​

If the Earth were the center than that means your entire sphere would be spinning around once every 24 hours around the Earth. The movement I talk about would be independent of the daily rotation of the sphere. How can a sphere of stars rotate around the Earth in 24 hours yet slowly shift through the night sky (and day sky if we could see it) in circuit over the course of 365 days?

---

It's very simple. There are variations to some degree in all rotations. The same goes for the Sun and the Moon. Tehy are both orbiting at about, not exactly 24h a day around the Earth. Since they are not totally in sync, we can see an eclipse sometimes, because the Moon covers the Sun. The same goes for teh stars, they are rotating about 24h a day around teh Earth. Not exactly 24 hours, but a bit faster. There is nothing strange in that, the basic 24 h period is an approximation.

quote:

---

If you apply a 1N force to a block of steel (or whatever other "heavy" object you have in mind) in space where there are no frictional forces what do you think happens?

---

Well, but there obviously are forces that are exerted on the Earth! Remember the Lense-Thirring effect I was talking about some time ago. The rotation of the shell is causing the coriolis forces on the Earth. And that is keeping the Earth in place.

quote:

---

Why would F=ma apparently not apply in your model? And do you really think the gravitational force between the Earth and the Sun is so insignificant?

---

Of course it applies. Yes, it seems so. Other planets do not exert enough force to Move the Earth anywhere. If they did, we would see crazy and non-uniform movements of the objects in the sky.

quote:

---

Your whole model assumes that the earth is somehow resolutely pinned to the centre of the universe. But you provide no means at all of equilibriating all the gravitational forces acting on the earth such that it retains this position. Your silly model fails even on it's own silly terms. It isn't even internally consistent. Even if we conveniently ignore all of the other observational difficulties others have pointed out.

---

You can keep saying that but Barbour and Bertotti's model has explained, and I showed you hat you wanted to see, how Newtonian physics would be expressed near the sun in a Machian universe. Everything works just fine.Now, about that part where I asked you to show me some equations that show that universe won't fall apart in the GR model, where are they?Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Based on your own argument, that couldn’t be your starting assumption though, could it? Using your own logic, your starting assumption would have to be based on what you observe — the other planet is fixed and at the centre of a rotating universe, which includes planet earth orbiting both the sun and your new-found home.

---

Could be. But you asked me, what it would look like if geocentrism were true, and we left Earth and went to another planet. Well, that is how it would look, and why.

quote:

---

Rotating universe? Centrifugal force? I forgot to ask; in your hypothesis, what is the shape of the universe — spherical, cylindrical or something more exotic?

---

It's a 3D sphere. Like a giant round ball.

quote:

---

Nope. Geocentrism was the starting point assumption. It was seen as the most logical assumption based on exactly what you said: we don't feel movement. The problems became the fact that we started collecting observations that made the geocentric model untenable. Sure, you can finagle things to make it come out, but the math gets very complicated, convoluted, and begs the question, "Why would nature be so grossly complex and arbitrary here?"

---

That's true. The Ptolomaeic model wasw not good enough to explain all the observable facts. That is why we had to replace it. And we did. With the Tychonic model that explains everything. And the question: "Why would nature be so grossly complex and arbitrary here?" is not a scientific, but a philosophical one.And also, when I said the starting logical assumption, I meant now, and today, for heliocentrists, it is that the world is actually moving.

quote:

---

Copernicus came along and, by the relatively large conceptual leap of putting the sun at the center, made the math a lot easier, made the complexity come way down, and made the universe seem far less arbitrary. Observations continued, and it became rather obvious that the sun wasn't the center of everything afterall, it was becoming more complex and unnecessarily arbitrary as we looked farther and farther out. It was then discovered, through a less revolutionary leap, that the sun was also moving through space around the center of our galaxy and that there are many such galaxies out there that are moving in various directions. Finally, along came a guy named Einstein who basically said that there is no "special place" in the galaxy. Making the arbitrariness that had plagued previous models completely obsolete.

---

The only thing Copernicus did was to copy Ibn-Al Shatir's geocentric model and place the Sun in teh center. That is all.Furthermore, you make a lot of assertations. Where is the evidence that the Sun is actually moving and orbiting anythin else than Earth? How do you know other galaxies are orbiting anything else, than what we see them orbiting, and that is Earth. And as for Einstein, he was wrong. The only reason he developed the theory of relativity was because the MM experiment showed that the Earth is not moving. Not becasue it came naturally to him.Also if you are going to talk about the simplicity. There is no dark matter, dark energy, black holes, extremely big universe, and all them unobservable stuff in the geocentric model. All this are just ad hoc assumptions which were never observed, yet are needed to make the acentric universe work.

quote:

---

So, the starting assumption, especially when you look at a newborn child, up through their early school years, is that the Earth stays put and the sun rises. We then make observations that give rise to doubts about that simplistic idea when it becomes obvious that what we thought was simple turns out to be almost impossible to work out when we take into account all the observations made over the course of centuries.

---

I know that for a child that is the logical starting assumption, but not for people who do believe that the Earth is moving in the first place.

quote:

---

What you're advocating is, let's either dismiss those observations as misinterpreted, or go back to an unnecessarily complex mathematical model of the universe that retains our special place without any reason to do so.

---

You are just making assertations. I'm not advocating that. You are the one who has a MUCH more convulated and complex model. There are no observations a geocentric model can't explain.

quote:

---

The fact remains, we can model the Universe with any point as an arbitrary center, but picking points thusly makes the math complex and convoluted. When we remove that bias, the math falls into place elegantly and in a relatively simple manner. Considering all that, doesn't it make sense to at least act as if there is no center, if only to make mathematicians' lives easier? Why are you so biased against mathematicians that you would want them to spend days working on a trajectory that assumes the Earth is the center when they can hammer one out before lunch if we assume the sun is the center of the solar system?

---

But this is simply not true. Acentric universe is much bigger and is governed by general relativity. It has dark energy, dark matter, curved space, black holes, 15 billion ly diameter, etc. It's much more complex than the simple small geocentric universe.

quote:

---

So, the train moves, you don't feel movement, and you have no way of knowing. You then exit the train and you are in a completely different place from where ypou started. You have three possiblilities:

​

1) The train moved, despite your inner ear being fooled by incredibly smooth movement and no outside references.

​

2) The Earth moved under the train, all the animals, plants, people, stars and everything decided for no real reason that they wanted to move under you in random and different directions.

​

3) The Earth completely rearranged itself, not moving per se, but just reshaping.

---

You forgot that we can't "exit the train" in our case. Do you, or do you not understand that? The only way to really know what is moving is to exit the universe. We can't do that.

quote:

---

You're advocating for number 2, when the easiest assumption based on the evidence is 1.

---

You are again blind to your assumption. There are no evidence that show the Earth is moving. How many times do I have to say that? All the evidence you have is INTERPRETATION from the starting assumption that the Earth is actually moving! Can you not understand that? Everything we observe can be explained with both acentric and geocentric model. Evidence is the same for everyone.

quote:

---

Your example also falls apart when we give the options of windows. Since we can see out into the universe, we can see things moving. We see the telegraph poles flying past, the tracks sliding under us. and the more distant objects moving slower, but still noticably, past the window.

---

But in your example, we already know we are moving. We can't know that in case of the Earth, because we would have to exit the universe to be sure!

quote:

---

You have provided no force that will keep the Earth at the centre of the universe regardless of other competing forces without also resulting in other masses clumping together at the centre of the shell. Why is the Earth the only body that is forced to the centre?

---

For the BILLIONTH time, it's called the Lense-Thirring effect. Please, learn to use your memory.The reason the Earth stays at the center is becasue it IS in the cenetr. There is no force that is going to push it out because it is in the center of the forces that are pushing it righ into the center.

quote:

---

If Newton's second law applies and Newton's law of gravitation applies then there are numerous forces that would disrupt the Earth from it's static position at the centre of the universe unless you can show that an equal but oppoiste force is always present at all times. This you have not done.

---

On teh contrarry, the paper i showed you explained just that. It clearly said that the universe would work with Newton's laws of motion. It is only you who is not accepting that.

quote:

---

Only if you assume that the Earth is fixed by duc tape and turtles at the centre of the universe.

---

No, nothing like that was mentioned int he paper. If you have nothing more to say than please stop wasting my time.

quote:

---

I have proposed no alternative model. I have simply exposed the assumptions and flaws in yours.

---

For someone who has no model of his own, you sure are confident that my is wrong. I suggest you do more reading than just finding flaws in my model.

quote:

---

Sure whatever floats your boat. Your model of a universe rapidly rotating the Earth has no mathematical basis. None of the physics or last 500 years of scien supports this notion.

---

Where have you been for the last 30 pages of this topic? It's not my fault you refuse to accept what I present.

quote:

---

Again you did not answer WHY DO WE OBSERVE THE SAME AFFECTS (I.E. POLAR NIGHT/POLAR DAY) OF THE SUN AND STARS ON OTHER PLANETS (I.E. MARS). THESE AFFECTS CANNOT OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY ON TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS IF ONE PLANET IS ORBITING THE OTHER AND NOT BOTH ORBITING THE SUN.

---

You didn't explain why it can not happen. I want you to first explain in detail why this can't happen.

quote:

---

I and many others on this board have read your posts. We just don't agree with your illogical assumptions, inconclusive and patchwork explanations of said "evidence", and your deliberate skewing and outright fabrication of evidence to support your position.

​

Repeating previous posts do nothing to support your position.

---

I'm waiting. Show me just one of my evidences that is illogical. Let's start witht he MM experiment. Why exactly can we not expalin this experiment as showing that the Earth is not moving?

quote:

---

This is a two-edged sword that works both ways. The question is whose interpretation fits best with observed phenomena. You are out-numbered several million of scientists and hundreds of years of physics and astronomy to a few of nut-cases and non-peer reviewed, non-published internet blogs and posts.

---

But at least I don't make logical fallacies. You just made an argument from authority. I don't care if the majority says otherwise. If we all, and always agreed witht he majority, than we would never had scientific revolutions in the first place. You do realize that that means that Earth should stay as the center of the universe because Galileo and Copernicus were outnumbered?

quote:

---

Your model makes no sense. The model of the Sun spiraling in and out closer and further away to the Earth (to create the seasons?) and up and down the axis of the Earth (to create the phenomena of the Midnight Sun and Polar Night) of does not match up with predictions of solar eclipses. If so please show me the exact math behind your predictions (and yes I can show you the math behind the predictions of solar eclipses based on the heliocentric model).

---

If that is so, than why was the Ptolomaeic model used to predic eclipses for houndreds of years? It worked just fine. And no, I have no such math, but, the Ptoloameic model was used and that means it was just fine for all the naked eye observations.

quote:

---

a. in independent circles (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
b. 180 day shift of position of nearby stars in comparison to background stars (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: stellar abberation)
c. doppler affect of nearby stars and planets (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit towards and away from said objects)
d. 4 minute a day difference between sidreal and solar day (geocentricism: unknown cause / non-geocentric universe: movement of Earth in a circular orbit around the sun)

---

1.) Stellar aberration is not the explanation, but the observation. You obviously don't know the first thing about this subject. Why are you even trying to discuss this with me?2.) Again, stellar aberration is not the explanation, it's the observation. This observation has got to be explained. You are so indoctrinated that you don't even understand the difference betwween an assumption and a fact.3.) Geocentric answer is that doppler effect can be casue by light passing through different mediums on it's way to Earth. I actually explained that few posts ago. It was a link that explained how light is passing through H2 and is causeing the effect. You either chose to forget it or not understand it.4.) The explanation is obvious. The Sun is rotating at different speed than the stars are relative to Earth. The difference is 4 minutes.

quote:

---

You have provided NO explanations for above phenomena. All you have done is repeat your matra that the universe revolves around the Earth with celestial objects careening about in wild trajectories with no explanation why.

​

Again why should we believe anything you say when you have not given one shred of evidence WHY your model behaves the way it does.

---

What do you mean by "why" my model behaves the way it does? If the universe is rotating that is what we are supposed to se. We are seeing thwe same thing just as if the Earth was rotating relative to distant stars.

quote:

---

I asked the question first. Stop turning this shit around. If you propose a model it has to fit the observations we see not the other way around. How can polar night/day occur on the Earth and Mars if the Earth is not rotating around the Sun.

​

I am not going to let you weasel your way out of this. I will keep asking the question until Admin kicks me off. I am tired of you weaseling your way out of ligitimate scientific questions with stupid, idiotic, illogical quips that do NOTHING to further the discussion. ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION!

​

When you answer that one I have about 500 more questions to ask for you to substantiate your geocentric model.

---

You have to elaborate your question a little bit becasue I do not see the point of it. What exactly am I supposed to explain here? Which observation is it that is not possible in teh geocentric model yet it appears in acentric one?

quote:

---

I explained this at the beginning, see post Message 41. In the summary of the experiment Michelson himself gave a rotational speed of the Earth. Yes, this experiment was later repeated and the results refined with better instrumentation giving a more accurate rotational speed of 30 km/s. Is that good enough for you?

---

No, it's not good enough. Simply because all the MM-type experiments perforemd without the relativistic addition give the speed at about 8 km/s. When you re interpret the MM experiment with relativistic additions, you can even get a number of 369 +/- 123 km/s, as Cahill did. Which is a pretty insane number.Error 400 (Bad Request)!!1http://www.mountainman.com.au/...rley+cahill+pdf&hl=hr&gl=hrThe point is. The later MG experiment was perfect. It assumed the 24 h rotation of the Earth (or the aether) and measured it perfectly within the limits of measurement error. All this was done without assuming relativity was true. The predicted avalue was 0.236 +/- 0.002, and the observed value was 0.230 +/- 0.005. This lands perficty witht heir calculations. If the aether is rotating once per day, that is 24h a day around the Earth, without invoking relativity, we have the right method, and the right numbers.Now, you tell me, why the hell should we interpret the MM with relativity in mind, just so we could have the number that shows the Earth to be in motion? There is no reason to do so, since the original MM method has shown to be the codrrect one. The speed of aether is about 8 km/s passing the Earth.

quote:

---

You are chulk full of logical fallacies. I just grow tired of pointing out every single one.

​

BTW, this is NOT a logical fallacy since the sources I am referring to are experts in their field as defined in this definition of the logical fallacy of "appealing to authority":

---

I'm also quoting experts. But I'm not saying that since majority says so, it's supposed to be true. That is alogical fallacy.

quote:

---

Please show me where I said or implied this authority is infallible? My assertion is based on the proponderounce of evidence by said authorities not just because they are experts in their field.

​

Besides, are you not sourcing your information from other sources as well? Than we would all fall under this two-edged sword of "appeal to authority". No, this is only a fallacy if the person you are appealing to is not a legitimate expert of the field in question and you are disregarding any other evidence just because of the assumed authority's opinion.

---

I do not care who you cite, or how many people agree. What matters is the evidence. You said that since almost all scientists agree that the Earth is moving, than that means it is moving. This is a logical fallacy. Majority opinion does not equal truth.