My ramblings on truth and grey area's.

[Mordred]

I love how geocentric believers completely ignore the detail. We can literally see objects rotating around their parent star.

 

We can literally see the Earth revolving around the sun via satellites

 

For some reason direct visual evidence just isn't good enough, they would rather cling to an ancient model that has been shown wrong for centuries.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

egocentrism>geocentrism. In my opinion, which ironically, is all that matters exists for egocentrics.

Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Scotty99]

I love how geocentric believers completely ignore the detail. We can literally see objects rotating around their parent star.

 

We can literally see the Earth revolving around the sun via satellites

 

For some reason direct visual evidence just isn't good enough, they would rather cling to an ancient model that has been shown wrong for centuries.

I think you are confused a bit. Geocentric model does not change gravity, just the center point. Satellites will still orbit around their parent star in the geocentric model of course. Also no, we CANNOT see the earth "revolving around the sun", where you got that i have no idea.

egocentrism>geocentrism. In my opinion, which ironically, is all that matters exists for egocentrics.

Ive never understood this line of thinking, that its egotistical to think that we are the center of the universe, as if we had anything to do with that if we were. We ARE special, YOU ARE special. Until we find life somewhere else i am absolutely going to believe we are indeed special, why would i think about it any other way?

[AbstractDreamer]

Ive never understood this line of thinking, that its egotistical to think that we are the center of the universe, as if we had anything to do with that if we were. We ARE special, YOU ARE special. Until we find life somewhere else i am absolutely going to believe we are indeed special, why would i think about it any other way?

 

No. WE are not the center of the universe. "I am the center". "There is only ME".

Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Scotty99]

 

No. WE are not the center of the universe. "I am the center". "There is only ME".

Apparently that went completely over my head, i don't even know what you are getting at. Are you basically relating a 9 year old girl at her birthday party to someone who believes in the possibility we are at the center of the universe, and that the evidence so far points to us being the only life in it?

 

Or i could have completely missed what you were saying, that happens to me sometimes as well.

[DrP]

I read it as "I am the centre!" as in "I am Sparticus!" - lol

 

Hold on Scott - you are postulating that the sun is the centre of the universe right? Or that the Super massive black hole at the centre of our galaxy? Surely not that the Earth is?.... a child can work that one out to be false. Our sun is one of many stars in our milky way which orbits a super massive black hole in the centre. We have seen in the last 20 years or so that every galaxy has a SMB in the centre and that the stars go round it. How does all that possibly fit with the Earth being the centre?

 

It doesn't make you any less special dear, you ARE special... keep on loving people and all, but get a grasp of reality.

[Mordred]

No I am not confusing direct observational evidence good try Scotty.

 

But direct observational evidence is not based on GR but rather supports it.

I think you are confused a bit. Geocentric model does not change gravity, just the center point. Satellites will still orbit around their parent star in the geocentric model of course. Also no, we CANNOT see the earth "revolving around the sun", where you got that i have no idea.

 

The all the numerous satellites that we have launched. Such as Voyager. Not only can we not see our movement we can also use triangulation to plot our precise speed. As well as the velocity and path of our sun.

Geocentism doesn't alter the center of gravity. That is determined under GR which counters Geocentism. Again good luck proving otherwise.

 

Under GR the effective center of gravity between the Earth and sun doesn't even lie within either the Sun or the Earth.

 

So before you start quoting models as support make sure you understand those models.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

No I am not confusing direct observational evidence good try Scotty

Wait what? Again lets not turn this into another geocentrism thread i already had that one, but we need to make a couple things clear:

 

1. You said the fact we can witness moons rotate around planets was enough to "disprove" a geocentric view of the universe. Nothing about that has anything to do with geocentric universe, that is gravity.

2. You said "we can literally see the earth revolving around the sun via satellites". You cant state that so matter of fact, it could just as well be that we are seeing the sun rotate around the earth.

 

It amazes me on a science forum how unfamiliar people are with the theory of special relativity.

[Mordred]

Why would you have a geocentric view of the universe when the Cosmological principle supported by evidence states their is no centre.

 

SR only applies to localized gravity, yes GR is involved but universe dynamics is determined by average mass distribution.

 

Trust me I understand SR far better than you do. As it is obvious it is you that doesn't understand SR. Have you ever studied Newton limit under GR?

 

Nothing in SR states it supports geocentism on any scale. Solar, Galaxy or universe. So please don't quote models you obviously do not understand with false statements.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

Again mordred i am not getting into the juicy bits i already stated that in this thread, i had my geocentrism thread and the moderators felt it needed to be closed for whatever reason and that is fine. The bottom line here is that you cannot prove that the earth is not in the center, just as i cannot prove that it is.

[Mordred]

Yes Actually I can but I don't need to. The proof is that direct observational evidence I referred to. You don't even require advanced math to do simple trigonometry of satellite data.

[DrP]

".....not turn this into another geocentrism threads..."

 

If it is one of your grey areas, then it is relevant.

 

It seems so clearly wrong due to the level of complexity required. It's just not the premise that the other galaxies and SMBHs go around ours that I find impossible - it is the fact that with all that out there, with every other planet going around their stars.... why is our's different? Why is the earth still with a rotating sun (with other planets going round that sun too) but every other one with the star as the centre. It is ridiculous..... and I think you know it is too. You must be trolling - you seem far to well spoken to actually believe this nonsense.

 

Regarding past civilization - why did they not hand it down to us like every other technology (tools, speech etc..) - where did they get this technology? Why was it lost? Where is there any evidence for it? we would see some in archaeology for sure.... and not the pyramids, they are well understood - basic buildings are easy to understand.

[AbstractDreamer]

I read it as "I am the centre!" as in "I am Sparticus!" - lol

 

You read it right. The exclamation makes all the difference.

[Mordred]

There isn't any real grey about the body of evidence against geocentism. Its pretty black and white with an incredibly high level of precision.

 

There is no geocentrism involving the Earth. Except the Earth moon ie the moon is the only non manmade object orbitting the Earth.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[AbstractDreamer]

There is no geocentrism involving the Earth. Except the Earth moon ie the moon is the only non manmade object orbitting the Earth.

Unless there's a Creator moving all the things around making it look like were orbiting the sun....just for us.

[Mordred]

Yeah I want to worship a diety who amuses himself by playing pranks on his subjects lol. That reminds me of someone's argument against evolution.

 

"God put those bones there to fool mankind"

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred

[Scotty99]

Yes Actually I can but I don't need to. The proof is that direct observational evidence I referred to. You don't even require advanced math to do simple trigonometry of satellite data.

This coming from someone with a "far better understanding of SR" than me, heh.

 

From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

The result was special relativity theory. This is based on the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference and the principle of relativity.

• inertial frame of reference: a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Shorthand: space the same everywhere at all times.
• principle of relativity: the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference. Shorthand: same equations work everywhere and at all times.

 

Also:

Galileo had already established the principle of relativity, which said that physical events must look the same to all observers, and no observer has the "right" way to look at the things studied by physics.

 

I don't think you have a full grasp of special relativity mordred, or at least have gotten so off course that you forgot what it says at its heart.

[AbstractDreamer]

Why is the creator seemingly endlessly flexing his omnipotent will only to deceive us?

[Scotty99]

Why is the creator seemingly endlessly flexing his omnipotent will only to deceive us?

Well that's part of what i am suggesting in this thread, we only have part of the story.

[AbstractDreamer]

Well that's part of what i am suggesting in this thread, we only have part of the story.

Well not really, if there is a Creator, we have NONE of the story.

 

Because the story then would be all about the Creator, of which we know nothing.

 

Which leads me back to my question #57

 

What can you tell me of your Creator, other than in his unlimited omnipotence, he is still bound by desires?

 

..this is what our creator wants ..

Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Scotty99]

Well not really, if there is a Creator, we have NONE of the story.

That is possible as well, for me tho i think some of it slipped through the cracks, and that is where i am completely guilty of cherry picking. What i am more suggesting in this thread is that we had a greater knowledge of a creator in the past, a knowledge that brought people together not tore them apart. Something so substantial that a creator is not something you questioned, it was a part of your core knowledge.

 

Or i could just be a loony bin, but i sure hope not.

[AbstractDreamer]

The Creator slipped? That is funny

 

If you are loony, take solace knowing at least you're not alone!

 

I think you're mistaking morality with knowledge. Long ago, we had simpler morals, and there was greater clarity between good and evil. More likely due to rather than in spite of our lack of knowledge. The universe of eternal deception that was Created just for us has but one law: Ask one question, and the answer will make you ask at least one more. Extrapolating this law back in time then, long ago there were less questions to ask. Therefore knowledge and morality was less complex.

 

However because there were less questions, our relative level of understanding (as a ratio of things we thought we understood to things we knew we didn't understand) was higher. So in that sense you could say we were closer to the Creator. You could argue we were happier then, or blissfully ignorant.

 

So now all you have to do is describe the Creator... specifically why he wants to eternally deceive us.

Edited December 13, 2016 by AbstractDreamer

[Scotty99]

I don't want it to sound like i am proposing some kind of religion in this thread, that is so far from my intent lol. Like i said in my OP i am obsessed with knowing truths, i am not able to lie to myself and that has helped and hurt me in many ways but its unavoidable, its the way i am built. In this thread i am just proposing a scenario that i believe could be a possible truth, you have to remember i am not a religious person i havent given any thought to what this creator would be like in any way shape or form, just that the knowledge of this creator would be substantial.

[Phi for All]

i had my geocentrism thread and the moderators felt it needed to be closed for whatever reason and that is fine.

 

Can't remember? It was because, as in this thread, you ignored actual evidence against your ideas and provided none in support of them. Instead you wave your hands and insist, and in that thread you got pretty insulting about it.

 

You act like you're being insulted, but can't be bothered to remember why your thread was closed. You make claims you don't bother to defend. You look to science for things it's not meant for, like finding Truth, and then insult it when it doesn't work. And when shown how science really works, you scoff and continue to fail at understanding any of it. Has this been going on since high school?

 

If you find yourself circling the toilet in some of these discussions, I would ask you to reconsider some of your tactics.

[Mordred]

This coming from someone with a "far better understanding of SR" than me, heh.

 

From https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

The result was special relativity theory. This is based on the constancy of the speed of light in all inertial frames of reference and the principle of relativity.

• inertial frame of reference: a frame of reference that describes time and space homogeneously, isotropically, and in a time-independent manner. Shorthand: space the same everywhere at all times.
• principle of relativity: the equations describing the laws of physics have the same form in all frames of reference. Shorthand: same equations work everywhere and at all times.

Also:

Galileo had already established the principle of relativity, which said that physical events must look the same to all observers, and no observer has the "right" way to look at the things studied by physics.

 

I don't think you have a full grasp of special relativity mordred, or at least have gotten so off course that you forgot what it says at its heart.

And what precisely does this have to do with geocetrism ? All you've done is reference details on the principle of relativity.

 

Ie [latex]g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}[/latex]

 

Mathematically show me geocentism under the above.

 

The reference of the right way means specifically that no observer is privileged and that the transformations specific to SR are symmetric under a change in sign.

 

It does not state geocetrism is valid.

Edited December 13, 2016 by Mordred