I am so Mad. Someone is Challenging me with this. How do I Respond to This?

[Questioning Physics]

Someone told me to watch this and prove it wrong. What do I say. Help.

 

gwwdvd.com

 

What do I say. I want to prove this wrong. Thanks.

[ACG52]

Geocentrism. Again.

 

Go here. http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/

[Mordred]

Someone told me to watch this and prove it wrong. What do I say. Help.

 

gwwdvd.com

 

What do I say. I want to prove this wrong. Thanks.

It's a good thing you recognized such a flawed idea. +1. The site linked above says enough

[ajb]

We don't want to watch the film. You will have to give us a few clear points that it makes before we can properly respond.

 

Anyway, there is no problem placing the Earth at the centre of the coordinate system you use to define the dynamics of the solar system. It is just that this is not a very natural choice as it does not respect the symmetries of the system. However, as any coordinate system is just as valid as another you are free to place the Earth at the centre. It is not a big deal.

 

The same is true of placing the Earth at the centre of the observable Universe, it is also okay, it is just a choice of coordinates. However, this choice is a choice and you can pick other points to describe things from. There is nothing privileged about our position.

Edited June 26, 2015 by ajb

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Please raise individual points here, to be in compliance with rule 2.7 - "members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos"

[Questioning Physics]

The whole documentary is crap. They are showing every step of the way that each of these scientific theories do not have proof and people choose their position based on a purely philosophical reasons instead of scientific evidence. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO EVEN BEGIN!

[pzkpfw]

... I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO EVEN BEGIN!

I'm thinking a cup of tea and a lie down.

[John Cuthber]

Someone told me to watch this and prove it wrong. What do I say. Help.

 

gwwdvd.com

 

What do I say. I want to prove this wrong. Thanks.

The first thing I would say is that the website is out to make money by selling a video.

[studiot]

 

. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO EVEN BEGIN!

 

 

 

So why bother?

[Epicurus]

I have yet to see the video, but from what I've read in these postings, it is something to the effect, "the Earth is the center of the universe". First; I'm surprised that nobody here has put forth an explanation refuting the aforementioned video. If I am correct in believing that their argument is a geocentric notion of the cosmos, then the answer is surprisingly simple: our tiny, little planet has neither the mass, nor size to have enough gravity to hold celestial bodies of such magnitude as the sun and Jupiter in an orbit around it. If this were true, life probably could never have existed at all due to the immense pressure created by the super massive gravity that it would take to perform such a feat. Also, there would be no liquid or gaseous water on our planet because the amount of gravitaional force would compress water into a constant, solid state, regardless of temperature. Second; any supermassive body capable of holding entire galaxies in synchronized orbit, i.e. a supermassive black hole, would never allow light to escape. This means that none of the pictures of our planet from space would exist. Since our eyes, and our cameras, rely on the visible spectrum of light to see an image or object, the light that reflects from our planet would never make it into space (just like in a black hole). Third, the speed at which our own moon circles our planet, and, assuming that we're accepting the physics of this video, our sun's "orbit" around us, would not be fast enough to keep them in orbit. Put plainly; all of the planets, moons, and our own sun, would be sucked into our planet, creating an even more massive body of matter. I hope this might help your argument, and if you need anything else, just reply.

[pzkpfw]

.. First; I'm surprised that nobody here has put forth an explanation refuting the aforementioned video. ...

What was missing from ACG52's post #2 of this thread?

[Phi for All]

First; I'm surprised that nobody here has put forth an explanation refuting the aforementioned video.

 

It seems you're the only person who thought it deserved that much time. ACG52's link was sufficient.

[Epicurus]

I understand your desire to dismiss giving an explanation as to why this question should be answered, but I feel a certain amount of obligation to answer even the most mundane of questions, regardless of how annoying they are. If I knew that nobody believed this garbage anymore, I wouldn't have replied at all. That being said, science needs to be transparent, so everyone can understand and appreciate what our universe is really like. I hate to say it, but many people STILL believe that the world is only 6,000 years old, flat, and created in seven days, as well as this topic. I think it's sad, but many people give up on science because it's hard, confusing, and only meant for geniuses. Absolutely not true. It's everyone's responsibility in the scientific community to be able to shed light on these concepts. Just the phrase "scientific community" implies that not everyone can get it and use it. And here is someone trying to defend ACTUAL facts to someone peddling beliefs. I just feel that we should help someone in need.

[ACG52]

I understand your desire to dismiss giving an explanation as to why this question should be answered, but I feel a certain amount of obligation to answer even the most mundane of questions, regardless of how annoying they are.

The link in the second post answers the question. Edited July 7, 2015 by ACG52

[Epicurus]

Plus, as the moderator points out, we are supposed to supply original thought, not links to videos or other people's opinions.

[ACG52]

As the moderator said:

 

It seems you're the only person who thought it deserved that much time. ACG52's link was sufficient.

[Epicurus]

Other moderator.

[Mordred]

Plus, as the moderator points out, we are supposed to supply original thought, not links to videos or other people's opinions.

Not quite. The moderators look for reliable supporting sources. Videos or opinions don't count as such.

[ACG52]

The moderators discourage the use of videos and links in the op without any discussion of their content. Use of links as supporting material is fine.

[swansont]

The moderators discourage the use of videos and links in the op without any discussion of their content. Use of links as supporting material is fine.

 

This.

 

What we discourage is the laziness in framing a question, that shifts the burden of time and effort onto the readers. If you can't do the work of writing up your points of discussion, then why should someone slog through a video and try and figure out what bothers you (or whatever the point is)? That's a bottleneck: you can't participate without watching the video. (plus, may of these videos are truly awful productions) What we want is at least the option of scanning a written piece of work to allow one to assess whether they are interested and/or can be helpful

 

Relevant videos or links in a response don't carry that same burden — the OP is assumed to be interested in an answer — though it's appreciated if there's a summary and/or a pointer to where in the video (or link) the specific information is located. It's not that answers need to be original thought. There's no need to re-invent the wheel.

[Phi for All]

I'll admit to some frustration over this type of scenario. Someone questions a well-established explanation or theory (which is great), but then isn't satisfied with the replies, most likely because they didn't understand the concept fully in the first place. Several pages of replies attempting to correct the information displayed doesn't help because the original questioner arrived at his/her conclusions emotionally, rather than rationally. They used "intuition" or "common sense", and science often doesn't agree with such subjective criteria.

 

I stopped trying to correct creationists in lengthy posts slathered in reason and evidence refuting all those tired old claims, but ultimately they aren't listening to me. They prove that by moving from site to site, repeating the same old lies and misinformation, even after I showed them exactly where they went wrong. Now, I just send them over to TalkOrigins.org, where everything I could say about the subject of evolution vs creationism has been written down.

 

The same thing with relativity deniers, flat-Earthers, geocentrists, and people who divide by zero. I try to send them to where they can learn, rather than a discussion board where all they do is argue from a misinformed perspective. It's not the facts that are missing for these people. They aren't going to learn until they study what we know, the way we know it, and look at it rationally instead of emotionally. Until they decide to take that step, most of what I can do is pointless.

 

It's good that the warning bells went off for the opening poster. That's what rational thinking should be doing, helping us spot inconsistencies in the explanation of various phenomena.

[swansont]

 

It's good that the warning bells went off for the opening poster. That's what rational thinking should be doing, helping us spot inconsistencies in the explanation of various phenomena.

 

Yes, it's good, but what they owe us is a specific set of questions, rather than subjecting us to a crappy and perhaps lengthy video. Even if it's a matter of asking what some of the lines of evidence against the geocentric model.