Strange

I don't see how nature could rebuild itself if the Earth were destroyed. (Of course nature and life of some sort may exist on other planets.) Why would you think that? I don't think so.

Well, they might have done. But as there is no evidence for it, why would anyone even consider it? There might be invisible pink unicorns flying around in the sky. But no one would take that idea seriously, either.

So, as usual, no supporting evidence. "In the 60s, Marvin Minsky assigned a couple of undergrads to spend the summer programming a computer to use a camera to identify objects in a scene. He figured they'd have the problem solved by the end of the summer. Half a century later, we're still working on it." http://xkcd.com/1425/ Before they can talk or walk, children can manage tasks that are still impossible for computers and robots

Apophenia While this can be fun (see how many films and novels make use of it) taking it too seriously can be a sign of mental illness.

Well, ultimately everything we observe is due to things going on at the quantum level: the colour, ductility, conductivity, melting point, etc of copper are all due to interactions between the electrons in the atoms. But what you are observing can probably (I am no metallurgist) be mainly explained by the crystal structure. Not perfectly still, otherwise the vibration could not be carried from one side to the other. (Try clamping the middle firmly in a vice.) Not instantaneously. I would guess this happens at about the speed of sound in copper.

It is just a news site. Why would it be "revered"? Journals like Nature might be respected, but hardly revered. And, even if the cosmological principle turns out to be wrong, that still doesn't give a special place to Earth. And, of course, relativity proves that Earth does not have a special place. (A fact you keep overlooking.)

I guess that is just because you don't understand what the block universe model means. For example, the word "concurrently" is meaningless in the sentence above. So is the phrase "in the same place". If two events were concurrent (according to some observer) then they would be in the same position on the t coordinate (as defined for that observer). If two events occur at the same place, then they will have the same x,y and z coordinates. The path of the light from the sun to your eyes is represented by a line (a geodesic - the shortest path between the two events) in a similar way to representing your route on a map. If there is a line on a map showing your route from home to work it doesn't mean you were at every point on that line concurrently. Better still if that line is a graph showing distance travelled against time. That is a 2D version of the block universe.

You can, of course, choose to define the word "now" in that way. It is, after all, a pretty vague term. But that says nothing about there being a "universal now" (which there isn't - or at least, not a unique one). Nor does it show general relativity (which uses a static model of space-time) to be wrong.

I don't see why anyone would disagree with that (well, maybe, if it is stated in terms of photons; but if you use classical light waves then it is obviously true). What possible connection does that have with your idea?

It doesn't offer any proof at all. It is just a belief. The fact that some people have believed it for a long time doesn't make it any more credible. That is just nonsense. There is a big difference between "there are some unanswered questions" and not knowing naything. We know a hell of a lot more now than we did 50, 100 or 1000 years ago. There will always be unanswered questions in science. I guess that is why some people prefer the certainty of faith. The weak version say you can choose the Earth (or anywhere else) as a central point. But so what. The strong version says that the Earth is special and this is provably false. Since Wallace and Darwin we have known pretty much how it works. Small details are still being discovered and understood but the basic mechanism are very well understood. They are both people whose public statements cannot be trusted. "Standing" or status is (or should be) irrelevant in science. And if you are struggling to understand the grossly simplified version, what makes you able to criticise the real science behind it? I don't see the relvance, but I can't think of any physicists who have supported geocentrism. However, there are plenty of religious physicists who support the existing models of cosmology (one of the founders of the big bang model was a Roman Catholic priest as well as a physicist). No, but the science does. Why? Which is why your (quasi)religious beliefs appeal so much. You will never be happy with science because it only gives us our current best understanding, subject to change. Holding on to ancient beliefs obviously gives you some sort of comfort. That's fine. Just don't try and pretend they are supported by evidence.

That is about the only way of doing (as far as I knwo). Your beliefs may no be religious; but they are still just beliefs - i.e. not supported by evidence. Whether that is "religion" or not depends how you define that term. That is not a problem. You can choose. You happen to have chosen the Earth as stationary. Someone else can make another choice. I defined these in post #196 (I don't think they are my terms, though): There are two forms of geocentrism: weak ("the Earth can be the centre of the universe", which is true but meaningless) and strong ("the Earth is the centre of the universe", which is clearly false). Absolutely not. I don't know why you think I assume that. I assumed that you had been watching videos by serious physicists. My comments still apply. (Of course, Sungenis and Kaku [sadly] don't count.) The problem is with popularizations of science which rely heavily on simplifications and analogies. People watching rarely realise that and so don't understand what a poor approximation to science they are learning. I thought you weren't religious? Why rely on Genesis for your physics when we have learnt a lot more since those fairy tales were first written down (probably by the Babylonians). That is not the point. You said it would be a blow to Christianity. The biggest church disagrees it would be a blow at all. It might be a blow to you, Sungenis and his few dozen followers, but that's all. But clearly, if evidence is irrelevant to a geocentrist (which you have made plain) then the opinion of the church or anyone else who disagrees with it is irrelevant too. That is the nature of blind faith. I am not a great fan of the concept of "truth"; it is too religious for me.

Apparently, one of the major Christian churches disagrees with you: http://www.christianpost.com/news/vatican-astronomer-says-alien-life-will-be-discovered-but-will-not-prove-or-disprove-god-126813/ We have all moved on since then. Apart from Sungenis maybe (and his views have been officially rejected by the Roman Catholic church - I suspect they wish he would stop claiming to be a Catholic). Any why use someone so dishonest as a reference for your views anyway? He is just another in the long line of "it's OK to lie if it is to promote my beliefs". Fine. But it ain't science (and is contradicted by science).

Fine. But you need to separate your personal beliefs from science. I don't really care what you believe. Just don't try and invent scientific support for it. I am always rather baffled when people try and find scientific evidence for their believe in God or whatever. Surely the whole point of faith is faith. It shouldn't need evidence. It is impossible to measure the (absolute) motion of anything. So, again, nothing special about the Earth here. However, it is possible to measure the movement of the Earth relative to the Sun, or relative to the galaxy or relative to the CMB, or ... If you mean "strong" geocentrism then this is (as has been repeatedly pointed out) contradicted by evidence. If it is "weak" geocentrism then, "meh". Evolution can explain that. (But that doesn't stop anyone believing in God, souls, or whatever. They are just unnecessary.) This is a particularly poor way of learning. You will only be presented with a high-level "sound bite" version of science. Things will be distorted, simplified and often just wrong. I don't think insight has anything to do with it. That last part is almsot more bizarre than your belief in geocentrism. Why on Earth would finding life elsewhere say anything about geocentrism or God? That is only true for one very narrow and idiosyncratic version of geocentrism and God (i.e. yours). I suppose there might be a few other people who share your view, but as far as I know there is no mainstream religion that holds this view.

Or modify our theories about how the universe evolved. This is a typical attitude of creationists and other cranks: "if there is something that science doesn't know then <insert random belief here> should be considered." But that ignores the fact that these beliefs (like yours) have no supporting evidence and are contradicted by the evidence and theories we do have. And not all ideas are equally valid.

Maybe that massive structure is the centre of the universe, rather than some small very average structure. It is not a theory. It is the cosmological principle and has, largely, been confirmed by observation. This structure might indicate that there is more variation than thought for some reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle The "standard model" is usually used to refer to quantum theory. What do you mean by it?

So can any-other-centrism. <shrug> I'm sure it was discussed here several months ago. Why do you think it is relevant? Why are dragging this thread off-topic in yet another direction? Is it a way of avoiding the problems with your beliefs?

I agree completely. There used to be a stereotype that those who communicated mainly online (email, bbs, usent, etc) didn't have a "real" life. But of course, that was their real life. Now nearly everybody communicates online but you still hear comments like the OP.

Nope. Because that is a mathematical model based on evidence and confirmed by large numbers of experiments. Irrelevant. The model works, even if you can't visualise four-dimensional pseudo-Riemannian manifolds. <shrug> For one thing, we know a lot about the way stars work so it is more than an assumption that the sun is still burning now. On the other hand, Betelgeuse might have already gone supernova. We might see that tomorrow or in 600 years. Or it might not happen for another million years. But so what? There are things we cannot know. Big deal.

The people I know who are most active on facebook also have the most active "real life" friendships and social life. (I think we have passed the stage where there is any meaningful difference between "real life" and life online. It is all just life, now.)

The universe?

What commands? What personal remarks? I presented my arguments. You have (as usual) chosen to ignore them. <shrug> What contempt? Thank you for the feedback. What insults? As you don't seem interested in discussing the points made, but only in taking offence at some imagined slight and making offensive comments, you can go on the ignore list.

I don't see why. And if so, then ... ... saying "the universe's" implies the star could belong to something else. By your logic, one should never mention "the universe" at all because it is otiose. Pedantic is not the word I would use.

That is irrelevant. This is a simple error that you and other ufologists frequently make. "I don't recognize it therefore aliens" is not valid logic. If what you see can be explained by mundane "mechanicist expectation" then there is no need to invoke magic alien plasma beings from the planet X'og. Therefore no one has to guess what sort of technology they may have as there is no reason to assume their existence. By the way, please stop putting quotation marks around random words. It doesn't strengthen your case. It just makes you look like an "idiot".

I don't think that something which only makes sense to you is useful as a description of "the way it must be". What do you mean by "here" (but no, it is about 150 million km away, not here). And what do you mean by "now"? Do you mean we can see it now? Or that it is 150 million km away now? Just over 8, actually. Correct. I think the problem is that you are trying to apply the vague and subjective concept of "now" to a rigorous model. It won't work. Events are defined by their space-time coordinates (x,y,z,t). Relativity tells us how different events are related. There is no such thing as "now" in relativity.

Just knowledge of neutrinos (I am nowhere near smart enough or well-educated enough to pass myself off as swansont - he is forever posting corrections to my posts ...)