Geocentric Proof Part 7: RE: A Challenge to a Geocentrist

[ZachSolten]

rtations. There is no conspiracy among scientists to try and "cover up" these things: the claims simply do not meet the necessary standards for them to be able to be considered by science.

[ZachSolten]

able by evidence. We've sent countless spacecraft into the solar system and beyond, and unless all the people who built and launched them are idiots, the data they collected all points to a solar system where planets orbit the sun. If you have found evidence to support your hypothesis, then publish your findings in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and the scientific community will happily discuss it to great length. If you don't have evidence, however, your claims are merely unfounded asse

[ZachSolten]

Evolutionary theory has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH ASTRONOMY!!!!!!!! WHY IS THIS SUCH A PROBLEM WITH CREATIONISTS AND GEOCENTRISTS!?? Evolution is BIOLOGY, and deals with organic life gradually changing; orbital science is ASTRONOMY, and deals with celestial bodies. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an evolutionist, as there is no such thing as a darwinist. Further-furthermore, the only reason science accepts the heliocentric model of the solar system is because it is directly prov

[tuoempeerc]

A well developed noodiocentric model can explain the same observed motion with just as much non-sense. All you have to do is ignore gravity like the jackass in the video and apply intelligent falling. If you want to go to Mars or the crystal sphere, all you need to do is fill your spacecraft with raman and pray for his noodley grace. If you don't get any positive results, it's because it's not his noodley will.

[TerrencePhillip66]

One question. Explain how a mass the size of the sun orbits a mass the size of the earth. Because gravity does not explain it. It says there is a point the two masses orbit about , and since the sun is so much more massive than the earth this point is close to the sun's center of mass (making the sun appear to 'wobble' while the earth 'orbits'). Explain gravity with your nonsense. What cause a mass the size of the sun to be dragged around a much smaller mass?

[muradin50]

@TerrencePhillip66 in order to change your axis from the sun into the earth, you must also aply compensating forces to all particles in the universe. Then, the sun appears to be dragged by the earth (wich actualy happens).

[vldmr0tube]

Here we go. Firs people who sincerely think earth is 6000 years old, now people who think that sun is the center of the universe. What's next? Appearance of people who think that the earth is flat? Let's continue ruin educational system further. We are moving just in the right direction. From the "ugly and immoral" present moment to the "beautiful" ignorant medieval past...

[pontecanis]

Bowden is an incompetent hack. Evolution has nothing to do with cosmology, and Bowden's idiot model created a binary system wherein the sun supposedly orbits Earth,Mercury and Venus orbit the sun, and all the outer planets orbit the whole inner epicycle. This is utter nonsense and doesn not conform to either planetary observations or Keppler's Laws of Planetary Motion, which have never been observed to NOT apply, anywhere, in any system. This vid is junk.

[TheIntolerantAtheist]

Nevermind that your idiotic fundamentalist christian views defy the laws of physics. Don't worry, people who want to believe what you have to say will believe it anyway, and the United States of America will get just a little stupider as a result, and no reasoning with any of you morons will change your stone-aged minds.

[KJVWordofGod]

@TheIntolerantAtheist In any closed system (the universe is a closed system, it is finite, so says science!)....in any closed system, ANY point can be used as a fixed reference point and all laws of physics are maintained.  Got that? ALL LAWS OF PHYSICS ARE MAINTAINED...NO VIOLATION OF ANY LAWS OF PHYSICS. So you see, you really are a fool. Just as I AM an intolerant Christian....not intolerant of non-Christians...just intolerant of those who embrace ignorance and confess it as enlightenment.

[TheIntolerantAtheist]

@KJVWordofGod wow, you're right. This means that the God of the illiterate bronze-aged Palestinian desert who's jealous, hates homosexuals and demands nonstop worship must have really created the entire universe in 6 days, 6,000 years ago. Who could conceive of such a number????

[KJVWordofGod]

@TheIntolerantAtheist ...I note you changed the subject. So it's not a question of science but a question of God. You are angry at God. He doesn't measure up to your standards because he has wronged you either personally and/or put you in a world you perceive is not as it should be. You should remember that it is man's fault the world is cursed not God's....and God provided a way for you to live ever in paradise...if you swallow your pride. PM me to talk. Hell is forever, don't go there.

[TheIntolerantAtheist]

@KJVWordofGod How could I be angry at something for which there's no evidence that it exists? I don't have any problem worshipping a God if I know there's a God who demands worship who will burn me tortured, screaming in agony for eternity simply for not believing in "him," a white, bearded human male of planet earth. Fortunately, there's no evidence to support your claims and it is obvious it is nothing more than bronze-age mythology, just like every other deity.

[Spoonfoon]

@KJVWordofGod Your comments made me vomit into my own eyes....

[Cinnarbar]

I don't know how anyone can believe in Geocentrisium anymore. I even don't know why he's talking about evolution. Has he even tried to look through a telescope? I thought people who believe that the world is going to end 2012 were stupid.

[fetusgrubber]

ROFLMAO

[mekkiseghier2002]

.the notion of black hole mean that it has a mass and if the light may be absorbed by the black holes; why it cannot be curved by the black holes and the stars in its arriving to the earth?...I mean; did we make mistakes in our estimation of the stars position? And if the light can be absorbed by a black hole weighting 8 times our sun; why it cannot be curved by our sun ?and why the light speed in vacuum cannot increase if we go to a black hole?

[FundieVideoHell]

@mekkiseghier2002

Light is bent by black holes, in fact, when using computer models, the gravity is so strong that you wouldn't see a "hole," you'd see a fuzzy patch of highly distorted light. Our sun also bends light, this was observed by Arthur Eddington in 1919.

The bending of light is called gravitational lensing, and we most often see it when galaxies distort the light coming from the galaxies behind the lensing galaxy.

[KJVWordofGod]

@FundieVideoHell Black holes are a fantasy of ungodly men who cannot explain the 95% of mass that they cannot find anywhere except in their mathematics. The problem being they are blinded by anti-God bias. It is not gravity that binds the universe but plasma...what the ancients called "aether". Furthermore, gravity has very little effect on light. Gravity is very, very weak. You defeat gravity every time you stand up. ZPE (Zero Point Energy) is responsible for light's bending.

[TheIntolerantAtheist]

@KJVWordofGod Most fundies attack dark matter and dark energy, as science knows less about them. They still don't explain the missing mass of the universe. Black holes, while not verifiable are fairly well documented and indirectly observable, mass from stars can be observed being drawn off by seemingly nothing, orbiting seemingly nothing. Then there's the gravitational lensing effect, along with energy streams being shot out millions of light years into space from the center of galaxies.

[Wittgensteinism]

@KJVWordofGod "You defeat gravity every time you stand up."

Really? Is gravity really "defeated" when you stand up? Can you defeat the earth's gravity (just to illustate that you have to talk about the gravity OF something, not just "gravity" initself) by jumping off of it's surface?

I don't even need to go that far; just give me 50 ft. Let's see you "defeat" the "weak" force of gravity by jumping just 20 ft high...10 ft...5 ft?

Hm.. looks like gravity can be a powerful force after all...

[AxisAnalysis]

@Wittgensteinism

Gravity in, comparison to other natural forces, is weak. The reason a toddler can defeat it only briefly, is simply due to the PERSISTANCE of gravity, not the strength.

The force a toddler can generate is dependant on having an object of greater mass to push against. The earth is such an object, the atmosphere is not. Area of influence; gravity of earth>atmosphere of earth>surface of earth. Rockets, in contrast, due not have the greater mass limitation.

[Wittgensteinism]

@AxisAnalysis You underestimate gravity friend. And defeat is certainly not the best term to use here.

You counteract the gravitational pull on your arm by lifting it with your muscles, but notice you cannot swing your arm up with enough force to lift you off the planet

Gravity is the sole reason for the large scale structure of the universe; the only force that can act on distances that astronomical. Besides, everyone knows gravitons leak off to parallel universes making it just "appear" weak

[AxisAnalysis]

[everyone knows gravitons leak off to parallel universes making it just "appear" weak]

When you can show me both gravitons and parallel universes, we can then take the additional step of observing one pass off into the other. Until then, this thing that "everybody knows" is just an unsubstantiated hypothesis.

[Wittgensteinism]

@AxisAnalysis That part was just a joke.

However, are you aware that gravity "defeats" the electromagnetic force every time nuclear fusion occurs and also when gravity forms a black hole? No force in the universe can escape the gravitational clutches of the black hole, not even light, which is a producet of electromagnetism, despite it having the fastest possible velocity. Or i could just say that gravity isn't really a "force" at all, but rather the shape of spacetime fluxing.

[AxisAnalysis]

@Wittgensteinism

Is that how you think you're going to make your point? By choosing absurdly disproportional examples?

Your argument essentially boils down to "a small child can utterly defeat an 800 pound gorilla in physical combat ... so long as there are 10000 other small children aiding in the attempt.

It does not prove that a child is strong or considerable, only that a large enough concentration of a thing may overcome obstacles previous concentrations could not.

[AxisAnalysis]

[ ... isn't really a "force" at all, but rather the shape of spacetime fluxing. ]

If that fluxing causes mass to accelerate, then it is still a force.

[AxisAnalysis]

In closing, that a black hole produces a gravity well potent enough to trap light does in no way make your point.

The magnet in my pocket, roughly the size of a silver dollar, produces a force sufficient enough to completely defeat the force of gravity produced by the entire planet earth.

It's about proportions. Proportionally, gravity is far weaker than other natural forces. It is infinitely demonstrable, and infinitely intuitive.

[Durakken]

Umm. This is actually 100% correct, this video section, don't know about the other parts. The reason it doesn't hold up is that it doesn't work when we actually send ships and satellites and such out there and some other various evidence due to speed changes and such that if it were geocentric we'd be missing our targets...

[AsokGreen]

This man is actually intelligent. The situation here is that he is defending with logic a position he did not arrive at by logic. He has an emotional need for geocentricity to be true; it is vital to his sense of identity and world-view, and this creates a large enough personal incentive for him to successfully dismiss all contrary evidence. It's a shame, because doing this could bring him a lot of frustration if people without this need see all the evidence unedited and dismiss him as a fool.

[MeisterFalti]

Newton has been raped.

[Spetsop]

What kind of non-sense is this? If he's proposing Geocentric model, then in this model every planet in the system should travel around the Earth... but when he's explaining Mars' retrograde motion he assumes that Mars is orbiting the Sun... so in his view Geocentric just means that ONLY Sun orbits the Earth and the rest of the planets still orbit the Sun... while the Earth is stationary... Question: does he listen to himself when he talks? What a nutcase!

[martiangrundy]

"In fact this fairly stable situation of so many planets around the sun, has never been adequately explained by evolutionists".

WTF? So now we have evolutionists (evolution describes biology) that can't explain planetary motion problems. I'de be surprised if they could, and if they could, why would one ask a biologist about cosmology/astronomy? Why not ask someone from the pertinent field being discussed?

To me this "slip up" is an illustration of just how dishonest he is. Very telling indeed.

[pontecanis]

@martiangrundy He also left out Kepler's 3 Laws of Planetary Motion, which provide the proof for heliocenterism, and which have been found to apply everywhere man has found a planetary system. He is a lying hack amateur fundie desperately still trying to support his biblical delusions, as is his buddy Redsky. Pathetic.

[martiangrundy]

@pontecanis

Yes it really is pitiful, isn't it?

It's also a pity that the people who'll believe him are the least equipped to actually understand how ridiculous, and downright dishonest these characters are.

[neelaakaasham]

@pontecanis By the way, why should Geocentric model be false and heliocentric true? Infact both sun and eart are rotating about a point in between them, isnt it (practically one could say sun id stationary, but in truth its not). So why should heliocentric be the only "true" model? To me, both models represent reality. If all motion is relative, one can suppose the earth to be the origin of axis, and therefore stationary. Isnt so?

[pontecanis]

@neelaakaasham The observations of the planets' motions and Kepler's computation of planetary orbits mean that the sun is stationary relative to the planets and all the planets orbit the sun...what you and Bowden describe is a binary system which does not exist.

[FundieVideoHell]

@neelaakaasham

The model you propose only considers a 2 body system, and does not consider the other planets. For instance, the barycenter (the point around which 2 bodies orbit) of Terra and Sol is barely perceptible (0.000646 solar radii from the center of Sol, well inside its nucleus) in comparison to the barycenter shared by Sol and Jupiter (1.07 solar radii from the center of Sol, just above Sol's surface).

When the other planets are included, a heliocentric model is the least complex.

[wavepsychic]

@FundieVideoHell Interested word play here. Do you know where the words Sol and Helios come from? They were both the same god of the Ancient world now considered Saturn. How did the Sun receive the names of the god Saturn?

[FundieVideoHell]

@wavepsychic

I cannot find any references to that. Sol was the Roman equivalent of the Greek Helios, both of whom were drivers of the chariot of the sun.

Saturn was the Roman equivalent of the Greek Chronos, and both were the deities of the harvest.

[wavepsychic]

@FundieVideoHell Thank you for your reply. Yes Saturn was the Roman equivalent of the Greek Chrono's. I must have got Chronos confused with Helios. I do wonder why they were deities of the Harvest. Saturn's symbol is of a Scythe.

[TheSpankymonkey]

I would like to meet this guy..... And slap him around with a wet smelly fish. Inciting religious violence? Damn right...

[crazy650c]

Good to see this info posted. This gentleman is correct. All relationships between the heavenly bodies remain the same. In fact, the calculations for rocket launches by NASA are the same regardless if the earth is circling the sun or the earth is stationary because all the relative relationships between the heavenly bodies remain the same in both cases.

[AngryWomble]

Fail!

[SecularGod]

That may be (your last sentance), but how then, do you explain the parallax of distant stars that is evidence of the earth orbiting the sun? And how is it that, if they orbit us, their orbits form perfect eliptical revolutions with the sun at the center? And why would mercury and venus only orbit the sun (and the sattelite theory doesn't explain this)? Geocentricism requires the earth to be exactly center, not kinda center.

[crazy650c]

You merely misinterpret the cause of parallax. That leads to your further conclusions to be incorrect. Condemnation before investigation will always leave one in ignorance and believing error. Not that I call you ignorant...you made an intelligent question. Your point of reference is just not correct. It's a matter of paradigm. In a closed system (universe), any point can be made a fixed reference point and all rules hold.

[AngryWomble]

I'd like to see some peer reviewed material on that, has to be from a credible scientific journal.

[crazy650c]

Love that phrase "peer reviewed". Scientists are the least objective men on the planet. Galileo was persecuted mercilessly by the scientific community. He never would have had his work published in a "peer reviewed" article. It is no different today. If one runs against the generally accepted "truth", one is castigated and ostracized.

[AngryWomble]

No, he was persecuted by the *Catholic Church*, science didn't really exist back then. Ok granted, you've discovered sciences dirty secret in that all male scientists are a bit shit. Which is fine, because us female scientists actually do all the work anyway. So it'll have been thoroughly peer reviewed by some 100% objective women, once we'd been shoe shoping to get over the subjectiveness.

:D

[jxvwp]

@crazy650c

Galileo was persecuted by the church not the scientific community.

[Squawkerd]

So in other words your arguing that all points in the Universe can be considered central, or that nowhere is? Fine, but it neatly avoids the subject at hand.

[Lallapalalable]

Ok, I like what seculargod says (because its me, i have several accounts ;)). If I misinterpereted what the cause of paralax is, please correct me. give me an explaination for stellar parallax that doesn't involve the earth orbiting the sun, or specifically where the earth is center. If yo can't, then please stop talking out of your bum.

While youre at it, give some explainations for foccault's pendulum and the corriolis effect.

[AngryWomble]

The ONLY explanation for parallax is an orbiting planet. You can see the essential principle using just your thumb.

You hold on of your thumbs out at arms length and look at something a distance away. Close and eye and alternate between open and closed eyes, the distant object will appear to just from one side of your thumb to the other. Thats parallax, end of.

[Lallapalalable]

im not sure if you were telling me, this just came up under my comments inbox, but thats what I believe. I was asking for an explaination from a geocentrist (so far nothing!)

[AngryWomble]

I may have got a little earer thinking that you were the heliocentrism denier.

[Lallapalalable]

ha no i actually made another account specifically to debate them

[maximum802002]

exactly, so we can say that earth orbits the sun, or that the sun orbits the earth, or that all orbit venus. We can not say one is wrong and the other is right. Are you wearing your clothe or are your clothe wearing you? Are you driving your car or is your car driving you? What is the purpose of sun if there is no man no earth? What is the purpose of living? If I will live and die and thats it? Everything is there for a reason and has a purpose, just because we dont know it doesnt mean it doesnt