So you don't know anything about about astronomy, cosmology?
If the earth is still the stars must be moving, so they revolve once a day, if one was just one light year away it would have to travel about 6.2 lightyears in one day, roughly 2000 times the speed of light, and the ones further away would have to be in perfect sync, moving at millions of times the S of L.
@Wordavee1 Thanks for your comment, but that sure is a lot of "ifs". But let's get real - you have no idea the true size of anything in the universe, nor the true distance, and neither does science. They CONSTANTLY rewrite their theories and even their "facts".
For a powerful example, go ahead and Google "Vast Solar Eruption Shocks NASA and Raises Doubts on Sun Theory"
Oh but wait... didn't science claim it as "fact" that the sun was over 1.4 x 10^18 km^3 in volume?
Look if and only if you're telling me that the universe is geocentric from the EARTH's frame of reference, then you have a point. But if you're not coming at me in an einsteinian route, then the sun and the earth orbit each other about their common center of mass which, because the sun is more massive by 5 orders of magnitude, is 30.000 km from the centre of the sun, which is, for all intents and purposes, at its center.
@sadathusain You have not accounted for an important variable, namely the size of the universe itself. What I am saying is that the center of mass of the UNIVERSE converges exactly upon the location of the earth. As such, there is no problem for the earth being at the center, both referentially and actually.
@davecyco It doesn't matter about the size of the entire universe, the Earth isn't massive enough to keep it together, let alone to keep the Sun, planets, and debris orbiting. So tell me, do you have ACTUAL proof? Geocentrism has been dis-proven already, do you take into account the seasons? If the sun revolved around us, then the seasons would be shorter, as would years. Seniors say have common sense, yet you have none. You are a modern day contradiction.
@Waroftheworlds112 Normally I would not bother to publish a comment such as yours or reply, but for some reason I will today. Basically you have revealed a few things: 1) A lack of critical thinking and 2) lack of comprehension and/or lack of diligence.
If you could think critically (by not simply accepting what you are fed by pop culture), then you would not be so recklessly quick to say "Geocentrism has been dis-proven". What a joke! Not even professional heliocentrists make that claim!
@Waroftheworlds112 Not only do they not (or at least not all of them) make the claim you have made, but the arguments you used are, frankly, pathetic "the Earth isn't massive enough to keep it together". Please. I never said the earth was the PRINCIPLE OF ATTRACTION to the center of the universe, I said it is LOCATED there. Do you understand the difference? If I put a marblein the center of a magnet, all the metal be attracted to the location of the marble, but not because of the marble.
In order to accept classical geocentrism you have to also believe that there is a conspiracy of titanic proportions reaching to the highest levels of government and academia around the world and stretching back 500 years, with little known motive Also all space missions that have been done past orbital space would require moderate to total fakery. This is a pretty hard thing to swallow.
@wolfpax22 Actually, all you need to recognize is that a very small number of people at the top need to keep just the right bits of information from their subordinates. If nobody has the WHOLE bigger picture, then a few elitists can deceive the entire world. Gee, does that sound familiar? Think NWO and you will see that your objection isn't really valid.
@wolfpax22 ''with little known motive '' ?! Are you crazy!? The Freemasons, Jesuits, Rosicrucians, adepts of the mysteries, gnosticism, Luciferianism, Saturn worshippers, Mystery babylon, Zionists etc.. Are working to build a new world order since always! If you can't see what is going on rght now, you are BLIND! The NWO is coming pretty fast. By the way it's all about the New age CRAP...
@axe414 Just remember that the Jesuits were infiltrated by anti-Christ heretics, and are no longer Catholic. See my video "Freemasons and the Vatican Takeover". The Catholic Church, however (not the modern day masonic perversion of it), is the one true Church of the one true God, The Most Holy Trintiy: Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Three Persons in one God.
There's no such thing as geocentrism. It is impossible for the earth to be at the center of the solar system, milky way and universe - EVEN in every geocentrist model imaginable. Fact.
Venus single-handedly kills all models except Brahe model. And if you draw the Brahe model, you'll easily see that the sun is ALWAYS at the center AS IT REVOLVES THE EARTH each year. This means the univ orbit shifts.
This does NOT mean the earth cannot be motionless nor the sun cannot revolve the earth.
.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?
@mekkiseghier2002 Light is bent by our sun, this has been known for years and is calculated for. As for the speed of light, it doesn't change. It is always going the same speed (as it isn't adjusted for the reference frame, it remains c). If I travel at half of light speed and you shine a light from behind me when I test its speed it will be traveling at c, if I am the same distance and you do the same, as I sit stationary, also, it has c as the velocity.
@mekkiseghier2002 The issue isn't so much the speed of light however, what actually is changing is the spatial and chronological viewpoint of the reference frame in regards to the velocity of the observer. It all makes sense, but it requires some math that I'm not going to do here. Lorentz transformation, look it up.
@TheFlanker35 Not exactly - I believe that the universe as a whole rotates around the earth and that each celestial body has a (relatively) fixed path in relation to other bodies within that rotation as determined by the æther. Hence I do not claim that an enormous body revolves around a smaller body on account of the gravity of the smaller body, but rather that the coherent and consistent physical structure of the universe (æther) keeps everything in its proper place.
@halleyscomet My PM should make it clear to you that the transit of planets, etc. does not need to be accounted for, as it is the earth unmoving at the center of the universe that is the only difference between what the establishemnt puished and what I believe. Everything else is cross compatible. My reponse to TheFlanker35 sums it up concisely.
@davecyco, one obvious response that I'm surprised I don't see here in the comments: What about the coriolis effect? It obviously functions here on earth (one simply has to look at any large scale meteorological structures to see that). It's entirely driven by the rotation of an object. If the earth is unmoving, why do our atmosphere and oceans exhibit effects that only appear on a moving body?
@davecyco, that link you gave only stated that in our day to day lives corilios effects are not noticeable. Of course they are not, the effects are very small. But applied to a very large and low friction system (like the oceans, or weather patterns) the characteristic spirals are very obvious and noticeable. The link never address why coriolus effects are visible on a very large scale (and noticeably reversed above and below the equator). Could you address that?
@NoAntecessor The earth is not rotating, but something much bigger is. There is no less reason to attribute coriolis forces to the rotation of the heavens (which exert a pull on the earth, seeing as it is in the center of the rotating univers), rather than to a "rotating earth".
@davecyco, ok, so you attribute any large scale coriolis rotation upon gravitational forces from other bodies. What about things like geocentric satellites, which orbit the earth at precisely the same speed it rotates? If the earth isn't rotating, why are these satellites suspended motionless above the planet without falling?
@davecyco, fine, I'll be direct. Geosynchronous orbits were predicted to the exact mile in 1928. Your suggested website claims that this is coincidentally the exact distance that a supposed electromagnetic repulsion holds satellites at. Both numbers just happen to be 22,236 miles above the surface? That's too big of a coincidence to swallow cheerfully. In addition, to be repelled by a magnetic field an object must be charged. Moreover, if the charge varies, so will the repulsion. Direct enough?
Unfortunately, Bowden is a crank whose idea is utterly false, and can be easily demonstrated to be false by his not being able to tell the model turns our solar system into a binary system that would result in 2 solar eclipses per day, every day of the year, as Mercury and Venus pass between Earth and the sun...see the video Bowdens Blunder. Have you ever seen the eclipses?
So you don't know anything about about astronomy, cosmology?
If the earth is still the stars must be moving, so they revolve once a day, if one was just one light year away it would have to travel about 6.2 lightyears in one day, roughly 2000 times the speed of light, and the ones further away would have to be in perfect sync, moving at millions of times the S of L.
Geocentrism is stone age stuff, grow up.
Wordavee1 8 months ago
@Wordavee1 Thanks for your comment, but that sure is a lot of "ifs". But let's get real - you have no idea the true size of anything in the universe, nor the true distance, and neither does science. They CONSTANTLY rewrite their theories and even their "facts".
For a powerful example, go ahead and Google "Vast Solar Eruption Shocks NASA and Raises Doubts on Sun Theory"
Oh but wait... didn't science claim it as "fact" that the sun was over 1.4 x 10^18 km^3 in volume?
davecyco 8 months ago
Look if and only if you're telling me that the universe is geocentric from the EARTH's frame of reference, then you have a point. But if you're not coming at me in an einsteinian route, then the sun and the earth orbit each other about their common center of mass which, because the sun is more massive by 5 orders of magnitude, is 30.000 km from the centre of the sun, which is, for all intents and purposes, at its center.
sadathusain 10 months ago
@sadathusain You have not accounted for an important variable, namely the size of the universe itself. What I am saying is that the center of mass of the UNIVERSE converges exactly upon the location of the earth. As such, there is no problem for the earth being at the center, both referentially and actually.
davecyco 10 months ago
@davecyco It doesn't matter about the size of the entire universe, the Earth isn't massive enough to keep it together, let alone to keep the Sun, planets, and debris orbiting. So tell me, do you have ACTUAL proof? Geocentrism has been dis-proven already, do you take into account the seasons? If the sun revolved around us, then the seasons would be shorter, as would years. Seniors say have common sense, yet you have none. You are a modern day contradiction.
Waroftheworlds112 9 months ago
@Waroftheworlds112 Normally I would not bother to publish a comment such as yours or reply, but for some reason I will today. Basically you have revealed a few things: 1) A lack of critical thinking and 2) lack of comprehension and/or lack of diligence.
If you could think critically (by not simply accepting what you are fed by pop culture), then you would not be so recklessly quick to say "Geocentrism has been dis-proven". What a joke! Not even professional heliocentrists make that claim!
davecyco 9 months ago
@Waroftheworlds112 Not only do they not (or at least not all of them) make the claim you have made, but the arguments you used are, frankly, pathetic "the Earth isn't massive enough to keep it together". Please. I never said the earth was the PRINCIPLE OF ATTRACTION to the center of the universe, I said it is LOCATED there. Do you understand the difference? If I put a marblein the center of a magnet, all the metal be attracted to the location of the marble, but not because of the marble.
davecyco 9 months ago
In order to accept classical geocentrism you have to also believe that there is a conspiracy of titanic proportions reaching to the highest levels of government and academia around the world and stretching back 500 years, with little known motive Also all space missions that have been done past orbital space would require moderate to total fakery. This is a pretty hard thing to swallow.
wolfpax22 11 months ago
@wolfpax22 Actually, all you need to recognize is that a very small number of people at the top need to keep just the right bits of information from their subordinates. If nobody has the WHOLE bigger picture, then a few elitists can deceive the entire world. Gee, does that sound familiar? Think NWO and you will see that your objection isn't really valid.
davecyco 11 months ago
@wolfpax22 ''with little known motive '' ?! Are you crazy!? The Freemasons, Jesuits, Rosicrucians, adepts of the mysteries, gnosticism, Luciferianism, Saturn worshippers, Mystery babylon, Zionists etc.. Are working to build a new world order since always! If you can't see what is going on rght now, you are BLIND! The NWO is coming pretty fast. By the way it's all about the New age CRAP...
axe414 8 months ago
@axe414 Just remember that the Jesuits were infiltrated by anti-Christ heretics, and are no longer Catholic. See my video "Freemasons and the Vatican Takeover". The Catholic Church, however (not the modern day masonic perversion of it), is the one true Church of the one true God, The Most Holy Trintiy: Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Three Persons in one God.
Peace.
davecyco 8 months ago
LOL protestant heretic.
vincentpistelli 1 year ago
There's no such thing as geocentrism. It is impossible for the earth to be at the center of the solar system, milky way and universe - EVEN in every geocentrist model imaginable. Fact.
Venus single-handedly kills all models except Brahe model. And if you draw the Brahe model, you'll easily see that the sun is ALWAYS at the center AS IT REVOLVES THE EARTH each year. This means the univ orbit shifts.
This does NOT mean the earth cannot be motionless nor the sun cannot revolve the earth.
SounzNice 1 year ago
.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?
mekkiseghier2002 1 year ago
@mekkiseghier2002 What you say is interesting, but I feel it is unlikely. But you never know.
davecyco 1 year ago
@mekkiseghier2002 Light is bent by our sun, this has been known for years and is calculated for. As for the speed of light, it doesn't change. It is always going the same speed (as it isn't adjusted for the reference frame, it remains c). If I travel at half of light speed and you shine a light from behind me when I test its speed it will be traveling at c, if I am the same distance and you do the same, as I sit stationary, also, it has c as the velocity.
r0bf 1 year ago
@mekkiseghier2002 The issue isn't so much the speed of light however, what actually is changing is the spatial and chronological viewpoint of the reference frame in regards to the velocity of the observer. It all makes sense, but it requires some math that I'm not going to do here. Lorentz transformation, look it up.
r0bf 1 year ago
Do you really, really, in all honesty, believe that the Sun orbits the Earth?
TheFlanker35 1 year ago 2
@TheFlanker35 Not exactly - I believe that the universe as a whole rotates around the earth and that each celestial body has a (relatively) fixed path in relation to other bodies within that rotation as determined by the æther. Hence I do not claim that an enormous body revolves around a smaller body on account of the gravity of the smaller body, but rather that the coherent and consistent physical structure of the universe (æther) keeps everything in its proper place.
Thanks for asking.
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco How then can you account for the transit of Venus and the observed motion of the planets?
halleyscomet 1 year ago
@halleyscomet My PM should make it clear to you that the transit of planets, etc. does not need to be accounted for, as it is the earth unmoving at the center of the universe that is the only difference between what the establishemnt puished and what I believe. Everything else is cross compatible. My reponse to TheFlanker35 sums it up concisely.
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco, one obvious response that I'm surprised I don't see here in the comments: What about the coriolis effect? It obviously functions here on earth (one simply has to look at any large scale meteorological structures to see that). It's entirely driven by the rotation of an object. If the earth is unmoving, why do our atmosphere and oceans exhibit effects that only appear on a moving body?
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor Answer to Coriolis effect: willingcatholicmartyr.blogspot.com/2010/09/comapring-heliocentrism-with.html
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco, that link you gave only stated that in our day to day lives corilios effects are not noticeable. Of course they are not, the effects are very small. But applied to a very large and low friction system (like the oceans, or weather patterns) the characteristic spirals are very obvious and noticeable. The link never address why coriolus effects are visible on a very large scale (and noticeably reversed above and below the equator). Could you address that?
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor The earth is not rotating, but something much bigger is. There is no less reason to attribute coriolis forces to the rotation of the heavens (which exert a pull on the earth, seeing as it is in the center of the rotating univers), rather than to a "rotating earth".
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco, ok, so you attribute any large scale coriolis rotation upon gravitational forces from other bodies. What about things like geocentric satellites, which orbit the earth at precisely the same speed it rotates? If the earth isn't rotating, why are these satellites suspended motionless above the planet without falling?
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor You mean "geosynchronous". Google "falsifying geosynchronous"
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco, fine, I'll be direct. Geosynchronous orbits were predicted to the exact mile in 1928. Your suggested website claims that this is coincidentally the exact distance that a supposed electromagnetic repulsion holds satellites at. Both numbers just happen to be 22,236 miles above the surface? That's too big of a coincidence to swallow cheerfully. In addition, to be repelled by a magnetic field an object must be charged. Moreover, if the charge varies, so will the repulsion. Direct enough?
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor THAT'S more like it! Very interesting stuff! I'll read up on this, thanks a lot!
davecyco 1 year ago
@davecyco, I appreciate that. Good hunting in your endeavors.
NoAntecessor 1 year ago
@NoAntecessor Thanks. Give me some time, though I'm working on a few projects.
davecyco 1 year ago
No I haven't, nor do I hold that the earth is part of a binary system or that the other planets revolve around the earth rather than the sun.
davecyco 1 year ago
Unfortunately, Bowden is a crank whose idea is utterly false, and can be easily demonstrated to be false by his not being able to tell the model turns our solar system into a binary system that would result in 2 solar eclipses per day, every day of the year, as Mercury and Venus pass between Earth and the sun...see the video Bowdens Blunder. Have you ever seen the eclipses?
pontecanis 1 year ago
@pontecanis The tycho brahe model which Malcolm Bowden agrees with is identical to the heliocentric model other than the earth is fixed.
SounzNice 1 year ago