[68AttendGem]

I think most on this thread are open enough to entertain the possibility that the moon landing was faked. Even if not the case, it is understandable why it could be questioned. For one thing it would expose the extent of the deception that is occuring.

I do not think that many on this thread have an open enough mind to question even a bigger assumption:

http://www.geocentrism.com

JQP,

I did not want to derail the moon landing thread by attacking this post of yours, I thought it warranted it's own thread. According to the model at the link you provide the earth is the unmoving center of the universe.

In other words, when I take my telescope out back, park it on a star system near Sirius, do you think everything in space is actually rotating around the earth? This is basic science here. I am not assuming the earth is moving, I am observing that we move with my own eyes! But in the geocentric model it makes more sense to say that star system is actually rotating somehow around earth? This is just plain silly.

I guess I won't qualify for your magic underwear either.

How about the idea that everything is in motion. Assuming we are the center of the universe because we wrote a book that says we are is pretty conceited, don't you think? That's BLT thinking.

[wMceqj7F]

DMac:

You say you observe the earth moving. What is your fixed reference that you use to gauge this motion?

[nonDosearrany]

How about this one:

Everything is in motion, but everything is in the same place.

[Chito]

I recall Galileo questioned an assumption of that size, and fanatical papists took umbrage.

[68AttendGem]

Gonzo hints on the truth; that all things are moving, simultaneously and in several directions all at once. It all depends on scale and perspective. At a glance, because of relativity, everything looks like it is sitting still.

DMac:

You say you observe the earth moving. What is your fixed reference that you use to gauge this motion?

I gauge this motion on several things. My observation of the moon and its path through the sky. The moon and its relation to the sun. The sun and its movement. Stars and planets being in certain points at predictable, cyclical times.

GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.

If I had access to more refined equipment back when I was really into astronomy I could have produced a film like this:

Below is a short video of time-lapse pictures of Jupiter. You can visibly see with your own eyes and $1200 worth of telescope Jupiter slowly spinning on its axis, moons rotating around Jupiter and with your naked eye Jupiter moves across the night sky.

Under a geocentric model this would make absolutely no sense. Why would earth and its moon be subject to some completely different set of rules in the same little piece of the universe? Literally, because the bible says so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWMaAF0kmU&

[68AttendGem]

JQP appears to be mentioned in the comments of this link on this subject:

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...galileo-wrong/

Chris Ho-Stuart
September 13, 2010, 8:52 pm

I’ve met up with these folks. Specifically, Mark… who is some kind of Sungenis sidekick. Surreal; but you certainly don’t bother trying to see what evidence would convince them. Robert Sungenis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Sungenis

Geocentrism

Sungenis has become known for his advocacy of geocentrism. He believes that physics and the Bible prove that the sun and all the planets orbit the Earth and that the Earth does not rotate. In support of his beliefs, Sungenis published the book Galileo Was Wrong in the hope that people will "give Scripture its due place and show that science is not all it's cracked up to be." Mainstream scientists reject this cosmological view as demonstrably false and untenable.[13]

[metrocartockasur]

As any physicist knows, one can freely define one's coordinate system to be anything one desires. So the question of geocentrism needs to be more strictly defined.

If you're solving kinematics problems on earth, the coordinate system would be a geo-centrist one to make the math feasible to do. If however you are trying to map the rotation of the galaxy, a non-geocentrist one makes more sense.

[nonDosearrany]

It's his damn forum; if he says the Earth is the center of the Universe, then dammit, the Earth is the center of the Universe.

Some of you guys are making this harder than it needs to be.



Having said that, since ancient days astrologers have used an Earth-based system (that is to say, the perception of the relative positions of the stars and planets as viewed from Earth).

Here's a slick little app that shows where the planets are at any given time: http://www.theplanetstoday.com/

[idobestbuyonlinepp]

How will the 300+ million Americans who think the world revolves around them feel?

[wMceqj7F]

Gonzo hints on the truth; that all things are moving, simultaneously and in several directions all at once. It all depends on scale and perspective. At a glance, because of relativity, everything looks like it is sitting still.

Within relativity, this is true. Any point can be considered center.

I gauge this motion on several things. My observation of the moon and its path through the sky. The moon and its relation to the sun. The sun and its movement. Stars and planets being in certain points at predictable, cyclical times.

They can be predictable in a geocentric system, a heliocentric system or an acentric system.

GPS satellites are our biggest observational proof along side of the International Space Station - which is real, in space and able to see the earth is rotating in the same fashion as other planets.

They do not know whether they are rotating around the earth or if the earth is rotating beneath them. This is a simple matter of relative motion. Your argument is that since they see the earth rotating below them, this proves the earth rotates. Why can't I argue that since I see the stars rotating around me, this proves the stars are rotating? I won't, because both observations have two possible answers (at least). First the earth is stationary and the stars rotating around it. Second the earth is rotating within the fixed star field. See the issue? That was why my first question was 'what is your fixed reference', which you gave a rational answer, 'there is not one', yet now you are claiming relative references as fixed.

Astronomers are able to see distant planets rotating around their own suns, just like we do.

This was Galileo's answer 300-400 years ago. No cosmologist would hang his hat on it. It is quite possible that everywhere besides the center, this occurs, which logically makes sense if there is a center. The idea that there is no center is strictly philosophical, and a "principal" (the Copernican Principle) that cosmologists agree to. There is no firm evidence that it is actually true.

If I had access to more refined equipment back when I was really into astronomy I could have produced a film like this:

Below is a short video of time-lapse pictures of Jupiter. You can visibly see with your own eyes and $1200 worth of telescope Jupiter slowly spinning on its axis, moons rotating around Jupiter and with your naked eye Jupiter moves across the night sky.

Under a geocentric model this would make absolutely no sense. Why would earth and its moon be subject to some completely different set of rules in the same little piece of the universe? Literally, because the bible says so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsWMaAF0kmU&

Why? How about because earth is actually at the center, but Jupiter is not? You know that Venus takes something like 247 days for a single rotation right (that is a heck of a long work day)? This does not make sense relative to Jupiter. Why would Venus be different? How about because it is.

Here is a quote from George Ellis:

George Ellis, a famous cosmologist, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995


People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. "You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”


Stephen Hawking says:

...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.


He does provide and alternative view, though:


There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe.

I have studied this issue for almost 10 years now. I have talked to cosmologists, astronomers, etc. Everything observationally looks like we are in the center. Science objects to it on philosophical grounds, and has spent $billions to try and prove their case, while ignoring the obvious. But of course no establishment would ever do something like that, right?

The current scientific case is unraveling. First they thought the cosmic background was going to prove their case. What did they find? They found that the random noise had an alignment in the universe. Do you know what it is aligned to? The ecliptic! That is not supposed to be there. the CMB is supposed to be completely random. They are so desperate now that they are proposing that there are infinite other universes. Not because there is any evidence there is, nor that they could even produce such evidence, but in order to maintain the Copernican principle AT ANY COST. They are understanding that the earth is in a special place, but are saying, but only in this of infinite other universes. Take a look at this.