Scotty99

Ok think about what you are saying for a second people. Relativity says there are no special places in the universe, meaning there is no CHANCE of there being a center. This would imply you ALL think the universe is absolutely infinite and there is no possibilty of a center in any case. Think on that for just a second (even when CMB data does suggest the universe is finite).

Whoa whoa whoa. If you agree that every frame is valid, what is wrong with geocentrism claiming the earth is the center? How is this at odds with relativity?

1 How is that different from what im claiming? They are one in the same. Surely you didnt think i just meant "any place in the universe is as valid as the next". You KNEW i meant the earth IS the exact center of mass as according to geocentrism. As for the flat earth theory, it honestly hurts my feelings you would even bring that up in this conversation and it really clarifies your intentions in this thread. (if you are on the internet a lot, or play MMO's much you would be viewed as a "troll") Proof please. How are we this far along in this thread and not even come to the agreement geocentrism is a valid theory in accordance to relativity? Please strange, show me a study that has 100% disproved a geocentric view of the cosmos (PS, you cant!).

This has all been talked about in this thread. We need to start back at galileo and go forward from there. I find this capital G lower case g stuff absurd anyways, yes of COURSE geocentrists imply the earth is the EXACT center of mass in the universe and that view is supported by relativity.

No, geocentrism only states that its at least AS valid as any other point according to relativity. Please now lets not go down this road, if you are really implying flat earth theorists are on the same level of "acceptance" as geocentrists, i think we are done strange.

Why not? How is it any different? You literally just proved the entire point i was trying to make in this sentence.

Absolutely not lol. Flat earth theorists are nut jobs, geocentrism is something different entirely. Again im not sure what you mean by "no proper meaning", as we have discussed geocentrism has a place in relativity, and is in fact validated by relativity.

Revered was the wrong word, respected is the one i wanted. The reason i even asked is i wasnt sure if space.com was a site like national enquirer or something of that sort. See im not asking for this, all i ask is people take a real look at geocentrism again. I feel it is one of the true travesties of our time, the stigma carried with geocentrism is on a level with child abuse. Its actually insane to me.

I am truly not trying to overlook facts not sure why it comes off that way, just trying to wrap my head around things and why geocentrism hasn't gotten a fair shake in a long time. Here is another article on the same subject from space.com (not sure how revered this site is in the science world): http://www.space.com/30166-giant-galaxy-ring-should-not-exist.html Last line of the article: O.o

Ok, thats fine. I dont feel tied to one thing, i just have a bit of bias towards geocentrism. The problem lies herein. Geocentrism seems to at least offer a bit of proof as to why it makes sense rather than "everyplace in the universe is the same, no special coordinates" With geocentrism you at least have hundreds of years of an entire civilization of people believing in something, compared to 100 years of current science. Dont forget, we are absolutely stuck in science right now, no one know what the hell is happening in the cosmos. I cannot speak to this. I did a google search of it and i still cannot comprehend the difference between the two. I have no answer for this. Evolution to me is a conundrum, we know it exists but we dont know exactly how it works. I find it wild you group those two together, given their standings in society today. I think the problem with watching videos is not a poor approximation but not a full grasping of what i am watching. At times i need to pause videos to understand a term so i can continue watching the video and comprehend it. Again, im confused here. Can you list a physicist who proposed geocentrism who wasnt religious? Yes we can both agree the church has moved on from geocentrism, but that does not falsify it. (again, we need to look back to the times of galileo) Whats crazy about this statement is ive always felt there is a truth. In fact ive felt my whole life i need to find the truth. I dont know what that means, but i feel i need to get there before other people do.

I am just going to respond best i can, i dont know how to individually quote stuff rather than copy pasting each line and pressing the quote button. Strange, what do you mean by personal beliefs? Have you not paid attention to my posts? I have said an innumerous amount of times that i am not a religious person. I was not raised religious nor did i have a religious experience to explain my thoughts of geocentrism. Its just that so far, it makes the most sense to me. Yes of course some movement is happening (as you mention earth around the sun etc) but the PROBLEM comes in that we dont know WHICH is moving. I dont know what the hell strong vs weak geocentrism means, the only geocentrism i know of places the earth at the exact center of mass in the universe and everything rotates around us. If you say evolution gives us a conscience i guess ill have to take that as fact, i havent studied enough on it to know if that is possible or not. To me it seems evolution means the strong survives, im not entirely convinced conscience and empathy fits into that. You say youtube is a poor way of learning, this i cannot disagree with. What i can disagree with is that you assume im watching crackpots. No, i watch people as neil degrasse tyson, michiu kaku, and plenty of the other well know physicists of this planet. I understand you are saying videos may be a poor way to learn other than starting at the bottom with books, this i do not disagree with, but how do you disagree with the teaching of such revered people in the field? I do believe insight has something to do with it, i was giving you a compliment. I was too worried about girls at a young age, not until later in life did i really start wondering about our place in this cosmos. Call it insight, call it whatever....you had an interest that put you a step ahead. Your last comment is really confusing to me. Geocentrism states that we are the only life in the cosmos, im talking about geocentrism from the bible. If one exists outside of that, id like to see the author. Ive read that before, but it is of no consequence to the view of a geocentrist. You need to understand that from the view of a geocentrist, they got it wrong from the start with galileo. Opinions past that (even from the vatican!) are of no consequence. There is a TRUTH here strange, its on us to find it.

This has all been in this thread earlier ajb. It all started with galileo which the church deemed as heresy at the time, dont even bother with the 1820's this was way before then. Robert sungenis has dedicated his life to this work and wrote a book called "Galileo was wrong the church was right". The second volume is very important. It clears up the statements of the popes, it explains what actually happened in 1822, it explains what John Paul II actually said in 1992, and much more, incuding the true extent of what occured at the Galileo trial. Volume II conclusively shows that the Church did support geocentrism solidly through at least 1833, then to some degree became ambivalent to it without reversing its earlier decrees. Volume II also presents the Scriptural and patristic consensus for geocentrsim, the basis of the action of the popes. We need to understand first off that the church believed for HUNDREDS of years that the earth was the center of the universe, without question. Only until galileo came along was this questioned, and ever since there has been problems with our view of the cosmos. We all know there are problems with our current view of the cosmos, we dont know everything! But if you took forums like these at face value you would think we have everything figured out (people get really upset when you even hint at something that disagrees with our current world view). Let me make clear i understand sungenis has a religious bias, but everything he has put forward in relation to the idea of geocentrism makes sense to me on a basic understanding of the universe. In fact, the original video i saw (which in linked in the first post) has no religious implications whatsoever. I had no idea he was a religious person, i only found this out later.

Because no matter what is taught in religion today, geocentrism is still a thing that they dont talk about in public because it cannot be proved in a relativistic universe. Trust me, that is the reason we are looking so hard for life (i know you say only a few are looking, but i truly feel this is important to far more than you believe). Maybe i went a step far in the religion comment, i only know if we found life on another planet it would be a massive blow to Christianity, i am not well enough versed on the other religions of the world. See this is the point i was making earlier. Why do they have to be detecting us? Logically thinking people would assert that if the universe is so massive there would have been signals sent at many different points throughout history and that at least ONE of them has hit us, even in our short time of searching, I dont see how us searching for only a short period of time matters, how about all of the information that has reached us and PASSED our planet many times over?

Yes, geocentrism states we are the only life in the universe, that we are in a preferred spot. This is in my assessment why science is so absoultely single minded in finding life outside of this planet, it would nullify geocentrism god/creator and religion. Ive always had a bit of a problem with this line of thinking. What does us looking for a short time have to do with it? If the universe is so massive and so surely supports life somewhere (in many many many spots) how has that light/signal not reached us easily?

Yes absolutely, even to a person like myself who half subscribes to a fringe theory like geocentrism europa is extremely exciting. I live in minnesota and have gone ice fishing since i was a little boy, europa is in theory the exact same thing. We will need to come up with a highly advanced craft that can not only drill down to get to the water, but at the same time transform into an underwater diving machine. The hard part is convincing the world it is worth the cost of the mission, and i am fully hoping this gets done in my lifetime. Its not that i suggest earth is the only place with life in the universe, its that geocentrism does and so far science has not done ENOUGH to tell that isnt at least a possibility. The crazy part about all of this to me is that if you asked me just a few years ago i would have said 100% there is life in the universe besides us, i mean just random chance says not only this is possible but LIKELY. Since ive discovered geocentrism ive had a different view on the whole situation, and us not finding life or SIGNS of life yet really added to it for me.

Yes, very good point. To that i would say, how do you explain we have found ZERO signs of life in the universe outside of us? How is this possible given the immensity of the universe? Our best chance (which i agree with, actually) is a mission to europa, which i believe is a moon of jupiter? According to research this moon has a full crust of ice on it, but due to various factors it is believed to have liquid water beneath. I would assume this mission is possible in the next 20-30 years, but what happens if this mission comes back null, no signs of life? Outside of a europa mission, where do we go from there? Correct me if im wrong but in our galaxy europa is the best hope of finding life, if this comes back negative what do we do! Sure we can scan the cosmos for life and identify planets in the "goldilocks" zone but how do we get there to see? Unless we figure out wormholes these missions simply wont be feasable. Yes we could do generational time travel, but i dont see that being successful because of the human condition. LET ME PLEASE ADD WHY FINDING LIFE OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH IS SO IMPORTANT TO SCIENCE: If we can find life outside of earth not only geocentrism goes away, but so does god, a creator, as well as religion. HOWEVER until that happens you have to at least give geocentrism .000001 of your brain power, we cant write it off fully YET!

Yes absolutely, i do 100% get what your comments are getting at. I dont want to come off as some crackpot fringe guy because ive never been about that in ANYTHING in my life. I have friends who are CONVINCED that 9/11 was a hoax and the moon landing was simply a social motivator. Ive never subscribed to any of these things. There is just SOMETHING about geocentrism that my brain will NOT let go. The major factor for me it that it is impossible to measure the movement of the earth in relativity....well because of relativity lol. It just seems far too convenient to me. As for the religious aspect of geocentrism, like ive said in this thread many times i was not raised on religion nor did i have a religious experience that "changed" me, my thoughts on this 100% come from a logical way of thinking and nothing so far that science has shown me says unequivocally that geocentrism isnt a possibly valid theory. I must add (even tho i know this stuff doesnt fly on a forum like this) ive just always had a feeling in the back of my head we have someone to answer too, otherwise how to you explain a conscience? I mean a conscience in a way that you feel wrong after doing something bad, how do we inherently know right from wrong? You dont have to reply to that last part, just something ive always thought on. Let me just add one more thing. I have watched a metric crapton of videos on youtube, from the "giants" of science and physics and almost universally they all say "to question everything". This is how discoveries are made. If there arent people like me out there that try and question things (no matter how silly they look on a forum of educated people such as this one) how are we going to move our race forward? I would rather come off as an idiot with a tiny chance of discovery than being chained to a certain way of thinking and being "right" in the eyes of others. That comment is not meant in any way as a denouncement of anyone who has replied in this thread, i view you guys as a source of knowledge because i clearly got started on my research into this way late into the game and i fully respect you guys for having an insight early in your life about what is really important, that i have only grasped fairly late in life.

Ah yes that is where i got confused, please disregard my comments about the standard model. Going back to that article for just a second, i assume you guys are connected in some sort of way to the "heartbeat" of science news (whereever that is). Have you heard anything about this story come up in conversation among the elites, and is the discovery new (like i said, im not sure the date of the discovery, just the date of the article).

Yes im not trying to use this as some sort of definitive proof for geocentrism, just something i found very interesting given our current view of the cosmos. And man this stuff is really confusing to someone just starting to research it, i couldve sworn relativity predicts a homogenous and isotropic universe but you say to the contrary. If not, what theory does predict this? I assume the standard model in general?

Oh maybe it isnt clear why i think that article is in relation to this thread. Relativity states that the universe should be homogenous, no special places in the cosmos. If a structure like this exists we would need to explain it in someway that does not contradict the theory correct? Geocentrism says we are at a special place in the universe, if special places do exist (like this massive structure they have apparently found) does that not at least make you give pause about what most people consider absurd about geocentrism (that the earth is exact center of mass in the universe).

Eh what? Im not dragging anything off topic. Im not sure how recent that news article is in relation to the discovery, but its dated august 6th. But considering relativity predicts that everything in the universe is homogenous on the large scale why would something like this exist? Was just something that caught my eye. Strange what did you mean by I must be missing something because to me this could be a game changer, no? How do you explain something so massive when the theories only predict the maximum a structure could be in the universe to be ~1.2b light years across. I just want to know where you are coming from with that comment, its very possible ive missed something.

Oh clearly i dont have the know how for this, math was probably the wrong word to use i just mean in general relativty geocentrism can fit just on the basis of the theory. I saw a very curious news article the other day, what do you guys think about it? (im not sure if its huge news in the science world yet) http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/space/stories/astronomers-discover-humongous-structure-one-ninth-size-observable-universe

Sorry i missed your post originally. In geocentrism gravity is a thing, the mathematics is the same whether the earth is still or moving....where did you get the idea to the contrary?

Wait what? Have you studied the CMB? There is NOTHING you can say to me that will convince me other than the earth is in a special place in the universe, this has been known for 20 years and CMB data is not being taught in school or talked about anywhere else. How was i being insulting by inferring CMB data that has been known for years and unexplainable? Maybe thats over my head but it sounds exactly the same as general relativity, please elaborate if i am missing important differences.

Ok perfect, thats exactly what relativity is at its core, why a special phrase in "privileged"? Again guys i CANNOT make more clear that i am not a religious fanatic. What i am talking about coming from a uber religious person would be off putting and i get that, but for me this is pure logic and someone trying to figure out how the universe works.