Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Cronos988]

But it has already been stated with good arguments that neither Geo- nor Heliocentrism are "wrong". That both have their applications. Maybe a geocentric model can more easily explain the movement of galaxies while a heliocentric model can more easily explain the movement of planets in our solar system. The most likely scenario is actually that with regards to the movement of galaxies, both helio- and geocentrism are inferior to something like a galcto-centric model.

Why would it matter that the earth is at the "center" of the Universe? What would that even mean? Isn't it entirely reasonable to conclude that since all our observations are made from the earth, the earth is logically in the center of those observations?

This discussion seems to have become a meaningless exchange of words without any purpose. Marina000, what is the point you are trying to make? Do you wish to prove that earth is the center of the Universe? That God exists? That there is an international conspiracy between scientists that is covering up information? That empiric science is a bad way to gain knowledge? Do you just want to open our eyes so we don't blindly accept every scientific theory as eternal unchangeable facts?

[Marina000]

But it has already been stated with good arguments that neither Geo- nor Heliocentrism are "wrong". That both have their applications. Maybe a geocentric model can more easily explain the movement of galaxies while a heliocentric model can more easily explain the movement of planets in our solar system. The most likely scenario is actually that with regards to the movement of galaxies, both helio- and geocentrism are inferior to something like a galcto-centric model.

Why would it matter that the earth is at the "center" of the Universe? What would that even mean? Isn't it entirely reasonable to conclude that since all our observations are made from the earth, the earth is logically in the center of those observations?

This discussion seems to have become a meaningless exchange of words without any purpose. Marina000, what is the point you are trying to make? Do you wish to prove that earth is the center of the Universe? That God exists? That there is an international conspiracy between scientists that is covering up information? That empiric science is a bad way to gain knowledge? Do you just want to open our eyes so we don't blindly accept every scientific theory as eternal unchangeable facts?

I know what I am doing. I am speaking to the thread topic Skakos started and am saying he has a good point.

People today claim that the Heliocentric planetary model (which replaced the old geocentric one) is the correct scientific model for representing the movements of planets.

However those who make such claims surely forget one very crucial and important aspect of Science: that it is here only to create models and that changing a reference system does not affect AT ALL the "correctness" of such a model.

Why do people still refer to such things in terms of "right" and "wrong"? How much have we forgotten what science is all about?

Your opinions?

I am agreeing with a part of the above. BB is a model that does not invalidate any geocentric model or its correctness.

I also agree that scientists have forgotten what science is about. Could it be that red shift is infering exactly what it appears to infer without further mysteries and complications?

Additional to an opinion that was requested, I might add, I have also offered a scientific argument and a geocentric model in support of geocentricity just for some creammy support to my opinion.

Now that I have pointed out the obvious, what are you doing here?

[Cronos988]

What I am doing is asking a question. I asked you to clarify your point. The reason for me doing so was that people were starting to talk past each other and the discussion was going nowhere.  And while you say that your points obviously refer to the OP, it seems to me that you are making quite a different point.  The way I understand it, the OP was making the point that  Geo- and Heliocentrism are equally valid and that people arguing for one against the other are misunderstanding science.  You seem to argue the exact opposite: for you it is not the people (the recipients) that misunderstand science, but the scientists (the disseminators). Consequently, you state that you have arguments for Geocentrism. In doing so, you display exactly the understanding of science that the OP and many other here view as faulty.

[Marina000]

What I am doing is asking a question. I asked you to clarify your point. The reason for me doing so was that people were starting to talk past each other and the discussion was going nowhere.  And while you say that your points obviously refer to the OP, it seems to me that you are making quite a different point.  The way I understand it, the OP was making the point that  Geo- and Heliocentrism are equally valid and that people arguing for one against the other are misunderstanding science.  You seem to argue the exact opposite: for you it is not the people (the recipients) that misunderstand science, but the scientists (the disseminators). Consequently, you state that you have arguments for Geocentrism. In doing so, you display exactly the understanding of science that the OP and many other here view as faulty.

So one should not be swayed by weight of data to support a view because that means one misunderstands science. Is this argument meant to be universal? How about flat earthers vs spherical earthers? I am taking the spherical earthers side because there is sufficient data for me to support a view and we all understand that science perfectly well, or are you and the OP suggesting we don't?.

Models are not factual, but redshift is very convincing. Convincing or not and scientific method is often the best we can do with the theoretical we cannot always observe directly.

The thing is that in this case I take a view and support one view over another because there is such a thing as convincing evidence that assists me make meaning of the world and have an informed opinion/schema and a preference for a view.

It would be wrong and non scientific to support one view over another IF there were no convincing evidence to support one view over another. eg redshift=geocentric model, redshift+many complcations=heliocentric.

However, if one does not see any data that is convincing re the geo vs heliocentric views, then 'yes' one should not support either view nor ignore the possibility of a third view or many views or that all presented views may be wrong. I guess that is where the 'many' you speak to are at right now! IOW....."Many' here are NOT convinced by any data or arguments re heliocentricity vs geocentricity (I am surprised), and therefore understand science! That makes no sense to me at all!

[Teh]

Teh do you honestly expect a serious reply to this post of yours.

Honestly, no. I don't expect a serious reply from you.

"So, how did our ancestors move about?

You claim the moon was "dated". How old is it, when was it dated, and what difference does it make?"

What has ancestral moving about got to do with anything I am talking about? As for your second line, are you serious? Do you honestly know nothing about moon dating?

http://www.universetoday.com/19599/age-of-the-moon/

So, you accept that the moon has a history, that it was created by a physical process, and that it is likely to be made from a piece of the earth. Prior to the formation of the moon, was the universe geocentric? If it was, then you either have to accept that it is no longer exactly geocentric, or explain why an object hitting the earth moves the universe as a whole, rather than moving the earth.

While you are at it, why not explain why the place the earth is now was chosen to be the centre of the universe before even our solar system was formed, and who made that decision?

Meanwhile, how did your ancestors get about without using their "hands"?

The statement was made because some nit here is totally unaware of the amount of falsifications that validate my one comment of many, that majority consensus doesn't mean much eg Big bang, because the majority have been wrong before and one single finding can overturn and falsify all the empirical evidence that was offered for the now falsified theory. This has happened numerous times. eg the moon and earth were created together up until moon rocks were dated, static universe model blown away, human knucklwalking ancestry blown away, . That is the diffference it makes.

And geocentricism was the consensus for a very long time. It has been refuted since at least 1687.

Your simplistic statement that geocentricity has been falsified is rubbish. It has been falsified only in the mind of the complicatingly confused.

I now doubt that you even know what the Copernican principle is from the way you are talking.

You must be aware that there was a time before the earth, before our solar system and our galaxy. You also must be aware that our sun is at least a second generation star, and that all the heavy elements we are made from were created in supernovae. You will also know, that the same laws of physics applied then as now. You cannot construct a history of the universe, including galaxy formation from a geocentric perspective. Geocentricism, like all refuted ideas, retards thought, retards knowledge and retards progress.

The point you wish to evade is that scientists first port of call is red shift. Red shift suggests all galaxies except Andromeda are moving away from us. Do you also know nothing about that either?

I am saying that data from red shift supports a geocentric model with galaxies moving away from the milky way as if it were in the centre of the universe. Now if you want to quibble and stay on topic how about you shoot that statement down.

The point you can not evade is that red shift does support a geocentric model. It takes further complicating convolutions to get to the heliocentric model. Parsimony belongs to geocentrics, no matter how you dislike it and how you struggle.

Red-shift is the same everywhere in the universe. Distant galaxies are all moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. Our local group of galaxies is still coalescing, but why do you think Andromeda is coming here? What is stopping the Milky Way moving towards Andromeda? You have no answer to that.

My second point is this in question form, if red shift gives what scientists call observable data and empirical evidence then is it a novel idea for scientists to accept such data to mean exactly what it appears to mean without complicating any data with biased predetermined assumptions?

By "biassed predetermined assumptions" do you mean knowledge of our deepest, most profound, and accurate theories?

We have seen all the nonsense about mysterious dark energy and matter and being stuck on the edge of balls and more convolutions than one can speak to in a thread space. I have listened to all the nonsense about all the matter in the universe being contained in a size less than an atom and think these scientists are more magic than God with their silly theoretical physics.

It is WRONG to seek data, find it and then not accept it based on a philosophical principle or predetermined outcome.

Well, I was right. You don't understand science at all.

Now of course most will disagree and that is fine. The one thing scientists can not handle is any information that suggests the earth is special. This does not stop with geocentricity. With all the waffle about alien life and its possible demise and earth like planets strewen everywhere in goldilocks vicinity and bla bla, they have found none of them other than in theory. We have a solar system full of planets and not one has as much as a bacteria waving back at us. These are the facts and to this day the Copernican principle is based on hope and a wish list, not factual information. Refute that!

It's impossible to refute self-contradictory nonsense.

-- Updated December 25th, 2012, 8:09 am to add the following --

But it has already been stated with good arguments that neither Geo- nor Heliocentrism are "wrong". That both have their applications. Maybe a geocentric model can more easily explain the movement of galaxies while a heliocentric model can more easily explain the movement of planets in our solar system. The most likely scenario is actually that with regards to the movement of galaxies, both helio- and geocentrism are inferior to something like a galcto-centric model.

Geocentricism: 1. The earth is stationary - REFUTED. The earth is spinning, precessing and nutating 2. The earth is stationary, but it spins - REFUTED. Newton's Laws, sidereal day, movement of fixed stars, parallax. Orbit of Venus and Mars ...

Now we even know that we not only orbit the Sun, but our solar system orbits the Milky Way, and that we are being pulled towards Andromeda, and that Andromeda is being pulled towards us!

Geocenticism is an insanely complex and wrong idea. Even worse, imagine the damage that would have been done to the progress of knowledge and mankind if we (apart from a few religiously motivated crackpots) hadn't dropped it long ago!

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


Honestly, no. I don't expect a serious reply from you.


(Nested quote removed.)

So, you accept that the moon has a history, that it was created by a physical process, and that it is likely to be made from a piece of the earth. Prior to the formation of the moon, was the universe geocentric? If it was, then you either have to accept that it is no longer exactly geocentric, or explain why an object hitting the earth moves the universe as a whole, rather than moving the earth.

While you are at it, why not explain why the place the earth is now was chosen to be the centre of the universe before even our solar system was formed, and who made that decision?

Meanwhile, how did your ancestors get about without using their "hands"? (Nested quote removed.)

And geocentricism was the consensus for a very long time. It has been refuted since at least 1687.


(Nested quote removed.)


You must be aware that there was a time before the earth, before our solar system and our galaxy. You also must be aware that our sun is at least a second generation star, and that all the heavy elements we are made from were created in supernovae. You will also know, that the same laws of physics applied then as now. You cannot construct a history of the universe, including galaxy formation from a geocentric perspective. Geocentricism, like all refuted ideas, retards thought, retards knowledge and retards progress.



(Nested quote removed.)


Red-shift is the same everywhere in the universe. Distant galaxies are all moving away from each other at an accelerating rate. Our local group of galaxies is still coalescing, but why do you think Andromeda is coming here? What is stopping the Milky Way moving towards Andromeda? You have no answer to that.


(Nested quote removed.)


By "biassed predetermined assumptions" do you mean knowledge of our deepest, most profound, and accurate theories?


(Nested quote removed.)

Well, I was right. You don't understand science at all. (Nested quote removed.)


It's impossible to refute self-contradictory nonsense.

-- Updated December 25th, 2012, 8:09 am to add the following --


(Nested quote removed.)


Geocentricism: 1. The earth is stationary - REFUTED. The earth is spinning, precessing and nutating 2. The earth is stationary, but it spins - REFUTED. Newton's Laws, sidereal day, movement of fixed stars, parallax. Orbit of Venus and Mars ...

Now we even know that we not only orbit the Sun, but our solar system orbits the Milky Way, and that we are being pulled towards Andromeda, and that Andromeda is being pulled towards us!

Geocenticism is an insanely complex and wrong idea. Even worse, imagine the damage that would have been done to the progress of knowledge and mankind if we (apart from a few religiously motivated crackpots) hadn't dropped it long ago!

What do you mean by asking was the universe geocentric prior to the moon dating? The answer is obviously Yes. Dating the moon to being younger than the earth just means some 'crackpots' had philosophies that were right all along. What appears to be more akin to a crackpot would be one that suggests a philosophy is more important than facts or observations.

You are trying to refute only one form of initial geocentrism, that being the sun revolving around the earth. Likewise, if that's your line, I will say that the static universe is falsified on the back of inflation, another BB heliocentric assertion, hence all heliocentric models are falsified. Do you really think that our solar system or the milky way being universally central is not a form of geocentrism as opposed to heliocentrism? Or are you happy to just keep hold of one broken straw?

This model was not invented by a religious 'crackpot'. Nor does this geocentric model require the sun to revolve around the earth. That must also amaze you. Does it also absolutely amaze you that some scientists are not happy with the current BB model that is full of holes? Does it amaze you that some scientists want to do more than baa like mindless sheep and follow and do no more than apply more and more sticky tape to a model that has become ridiculously complex?

Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe

"Personally, regardless of how it turns out, I think one element of all of this is just rich. In the past, any ideas, such as Copernicus’, that suggested the Earth was not the center of the universe were (we are told) turned away as unacceptable and an affront to the truth — to be refused on principle, regardless of the facts or observations. Now, have we come to a point where the reverse bias is in play? Is a theory to be rejected solely on principle because it suggests the possibility that the Earth might be the center of the universe — again, regardless of the facts or observations?"

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010 ... -universe/

"Over the last decade, some researchers have been working to describe what dark energy might be, but others have gone back to see if the equations of general relativity can be tweaked to avoid having to use such a troublesome piece of math." http://seedmagazine.com/content/article ... energy/P1/

As opposed to you I tend to see modern scientists growing more dogmatically ignorant as time passes whilst riding on the back of the Copernican principle. I am pleased to see some break away, finally. However they will be stiffled by the egotists that value philosophy over scientific advancement.

Hence if a mindless lack of ability to formulate a view is what it takes to understand science, then I guess 'many' here are on that track, as a previous poster suggested.

There also appears to be many like you that prefer to ignore all observation and aside with mysteries and contradictions.

If on the other hand there is suffient data to formulate a scientific view then a novel idea may be to accept it without confounding the data through philosophically biased lenses. Perhaps it is the heliocentrics that really are the crackpots! .

[Teh]

Hence if a mindless lack of ability to formulate a view is what it takes to understand science, then I guess 'many' here are on that track, as a previous poster suggested.

There also appears to be many like you that prefer to ignore all observation and aside with mysteries and contradictions.

If on the other hand there is suffient data to formulate a scientific view then a novel idea may be to accept it without confounding the data through philosophically biased lenses. Perhaps it is the heliocentrics that really are the crackpots! .

Sadly for you and the religious nutcase blog you cite, and sadly mistaken paper you reference, Dark Energy exists.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2125

Dark Energy has been detected, which means that if you have a shred of intellectual integrity, you will drop the geocentric nonsense.

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


Sadly for you and the religious nutcase blog you cite, and sadly mistaken paper you reference, Dark Energy exists.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.2125

Dark Energy has been detected, which means that if you have a shred of intellectual integrity, you will drop the geocentric nonsense.

Dark energy has not been detected in any way other than theory and maths calculations that support the existence of a mystery they know nothing more about.

"Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time, so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence. But now, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, the scientists the likelihood of the existence of dark matter stands at 99.996 per cent.

"But with our new work we're more confident than ever that this exotic component of the Universe is real – even if we still have no idea what it consists of," said Bob Nichol, a member of the Portsmouth team.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... mers-.html

I like this comment

'If', 'maybe' and 'likely' This is a blatant display of ignorance. Granted, there are a lot of things we don't know. To pin the lot of them on 'dark whatever' is a busybody trick to allow them yapping and publishing. I publish, therefore I exist It is the background noise of science.

So you think you can post the latest flavour of the month that addresses one of many concerns about BB and cosmic background radiation and think that does what? All you have quoted is a great example of heliocentrics squabbling over data. There are plenty of them. Are you further suggesting any flavour of the month may not be overturned tomorrow? Is the latest flavour always right? ...Y.... Oh! you said that last time!! .....Get it!

The least magical observation you have is redshift that suggests all but a few galaxies are moving away from the earth.

We can turn this into a scientific debate where I will challenge the veracity of redshift as being not a measure of expansion at all as it measures doppler effect. Then I can present my own papers on the non homogenous universe. Then we can chase around in circles about that and have a scientific debate that faces off one lot of algorithmic magic against another.

Here are a few subjects we could chase around over....

http://cosmology.unige.ch/content/measu ... s-universe

http://news.discovery.com/space/cosmic- ... 20615.html

http://www.setterfield.org/static_universe.html


The thing is that IF you accept redshift as an observation then that supports a geocentric model. Any data more than that relies on more and more assumptions.

If one relies on the observation of sight through telescopes then galaxies are evenly distributed all around us. There is no huge void and then the start of more galaxies at the other side of some ball. Nothing like that is actually observed. It is all modelling on assumptions.

Instead of chasing me around in circles why don't you tell us why that scientific mind of yours prefers mysteries and philosophies as opposed to any alternative supposition that is less mysterious or otherwise keeping an open mind?

Hence what I said still stands......

As opposed to you I tend to see modern scientists growing more dogmatically ignorant as time passes whilst riding on the back of the Copernican principle.

Hence if a lack of ability to formulate a view is based on a critique of the credibility of supplied data, then that could be seen as remaining open minded. I at least could agree in principle with that.

There also appears to be many like you that prefer to ignore all observation and aside with mysteries and contradictions.

If on the other hand there is suffient data to formulate a scientific view then a novel idea may be to accept it without confounding the data through philosophically biased lenses. I suggest the wise and logical ones are those that either support a geocentric view based on observed data or remain open minded and scientifically curious, regardless of Copernicus. Perhaps it is the heliocentrics that really are the crackpots, as they declare a philosophy to be one of their guiding lights!

[Teh]

Dark energy has not been detected in any way other than theory and maths calculations that support the existence of a mystery they know nothing more about.

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite, as the only support you have for your geocentric view is a mathematical model? The fact that the mathematical model cannot account for observed properties of the CMB, and is thus refuted, is ignored by you. Your crackpot geocentricism is also refuted by other observational data supporting a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. You are simply ignoring established empirical data. The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is a DIRECT signal of dark energy.

"Dark energy is one of the great scientific mysteries of our time, so it isn't surprising that so many researchers question its existence. But now, according to a team of astronomers at the University of Portsmouth and LMU University Munich, led by Tommaso Giannantonio and Robert Crittenden, the scientists the likelihood of the existence of dark matter stands at 99.996 per cent.

I guess that qualifies you as innumerate as well. There is no shame in being unable to understand science. The shame comes when you deny our deepest, most accurate, and most profound theories on the basis of your inability to understand them.

The thing is that IF you accept redshift as an observation then that supports a geocentric model. Any data more than that relies on more and more assumptions.

The above statement is false. Redshift is the same everywhere. Geocentricism is plausible, but wrong, based on theory and evidence. So, it is a reasonable conjecture to make. Indeed it has been made, been criticised, and refuted. However, the above statement is evidence of intellectual limitation. If you make it in a physics or mathematics department, you risk humiliation.

As opposed to you I tend to see modern scientists growing more dogmatically ignorant as time passes whilst riding on the back of the Copernican principle.

Hence if a lack of ability to formulate a view is based on a critique of the credibility of supplied data, then that could be seen as remaining open minded. I at least could agree in principle with that.

There also appears to be many like you that prefer to ignore all observation and aside with mysteries and contradictions.

If on the other hand there is suffient data to formulate a scientific view then a novel idea may be to accept it without confounding the data through philosophically biased lenses. I suggest the wise and logical ones are those that either support a geocentric view based on observed data or remain open minded and scientifically curious, regardless of Copernicus. Perhaps it is the heliocentrics that really are the crackpots, as they declare a philosophy to be one of their guiding lights!

I see, the old "scientists are all wrong" meme.

[Dolphin42]

Marina000: Apologies if you've already explained this, but could you tell me what you mean when you refer to "geocentrism"? To me, "geo" refers to the Earth. But you seem to keep talking about red shifts. Why would these have anything to do with the Earth being the center of the Universe? There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy and a similar number in M31 and presumably large numbers in other galaxies in our local group. In what sense does the red shift of distant galaxies say anything about the status of the Earth?

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)

Doesn't that make you a hypocrite, as the only support you have for your geocentric view is a mathematical model? The fact that the mathematical model cannot account for observed properties of the CMB, and is thus refuted, is ignored by you. Your crackpot geocentricism is also refuted by other observational data supporting a homogeneous, isotropic, expanding universe. You are simply ignoring established empirical data. The Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is a DIRECT signal of dark energy.

OFHS, now you want to face off what is not obseved with what is not observed. Good luck to you!!!!! That geocentric model is an example of how a geocentric model can have validity. Are the very astrophysicists that come up with all this nonsense not mathematicians? Quack! You lot are still arguing about homogoneous or not.

It is not about the veracity of this model. It is about the fact that all redshift data has the majority of galaxies moving away from the earth. The rest requires more algorithmic magic. That is the truth, much to your dismay.

There is no observation by telescopic sight of voids and all that hubris that current models purport. What is observed is galaxies all around and about and powerfull ones continue to support this observation. That is also an observed fact that does not rely on assumptive algorithms.

There is no established data around a homogenous universe or not. Your data is based on algorithms with unknown insertion values.

http://news.discovery.com/space/cosmic- ... 20615.html http://cosmology.unige.ch/content/measu ... s-universe

Indeed, it is obvious that the Universe isn't homogeneous on short length scales - if I take the Earth to a point between galaxies, the Universe isn't going to look the same. On a larger size scale, the Universe is filled with a filamentary structure, with filaments composed of dark matter and clusters of galaxies.

Hence the observed information as well as red shift data supports a geocentric model and the extra complicated rhetoric supports the heliocentric model.

I guess that qualifies you as innumerate as well. There is no shame in being unable to understand science. The shame comes when you deny our deepest, most accurate, and most profound theories on the basis of your inability to understand them. (Nested quote removed.)


The above statement is false. Redshift is the same everywhere. Geocentricism is plausible, but wrong, based on theory and evidence. So, it is a reasonable conjecture to make. Indeed it has been made, been criticised, and refuted. However, the above statement is evidence of intellectual limitation. If you make it in a physics or mathematics department, you risk humiliation.

I offered more than bla bla. BB has also been criticised. No links or support to this algorithmic magic from you just a constant rehashing of the ignoramce that everyone has already heard.

BB has that many holes in it that Alice in Wonderland should not be hard for heliocentrics to accept.

You can only hypothesise that red shift is the same everywhere based on a predetermined assumption, so don't sprooke off as if theory is factual because you will end up looking like the goose. You do understand that don't you? No one has been out there to observe if all galaxies move away from each other at any point in space, except when wish listing. Indeed expansion on the outer edge of a ball, is the tale required to get biased data to fit in with a predetermined assumption. That bizarre complication is more face saving than admitting the entire concept of BB has no credibility at all.

Don't forget it was this expansion nonsense that resulted in the ball myth. Then there is evidence to suggest the observable universe is flat.... So now you've got a flat ball.

There are many non religionists that aren't happy with BB to begin with, and I am sure that is a total surprise to you. maybe you could humiliate those that are likely better credentialled than you.

(Nested quote removed.)



I see, the old "scientists are all wrong" meme.

Yes, flavour of the month is often wrong and that is why the only data that is factual and reliable is that which is observed without the need for algorithmic magic. Your simplistic reply and unsubstantiated opinion, at every step, bears about as much weight as fluff.

Until you decide to explain what this mysterious dark energy actually is that heliocentrics base all their rhetoric on, you will remain philosophical 'crackpots' as per my last post and I'll leave you flapping in the breeze with your mysteries and philosophies in hand.

[Teh]

OFHS, now you want to face off what is not obseved with what is not observed. Good luck to you!!!!! That geocentric model is an example of how a geocentric model can have validity. Are the very astrophysicists that come up with all this nonsense not mathematicians? Quack! You lot are still arguing about homogoneous or not.

Your geocentric model is refuted by empirical data.

It is not about the veracity of this model. It is about the fact that all redshift data has the majority of galaxies moving away from the earth. The rest requires more algorithmic magic. That is the truth, much to your dismay.

You don't understand redshift. It's the same everywhere.

Hence the observed information as well as red shift data supports a geocentric model and the extra complicated rhetoric supports the heliocentric model.

Redshift is the same everywhere, so it doesn't support any particular reference frame. Accelerating redshift is explained by dark energy.

I offered more than bla bla. BB has also been criticised. No links or support to this algorithmic magic from you just a constant rehashing of the ignoramce that everyone has already heard.

BB has that many holes in it that Alice in Wonderland should not be hard for heliocentrics to accept.

"bla bla" is your most coherent statement yet.

You can only hypothesise that red shift is the same everywhere based on a predetermined assumption, so don't sprooke off as if theory is factual because you will end up looking like the goose. You do understand that don't you? No one has been out there to observe if all galaxies move away from each other at any point in space, except when wish listing. Indeed expansion on the outer edge of a ball, is the tale required to get biased data to fit in with a predetermined assumption. That bizarre complication is more face saving than admitting the entire concept of BB has no credibility at all.

I see. There was no Big Bang and cosmology is all wrong, and you are right.

Don't forget it was this expansion nonsense that resulted in the ball myth. Then there is evidence to suggest the observable universe is flat.... So now you've got a flat ball.

Ah yes, the famous ball myth, that no one has heard about except you.

Until you decide to explain what this mysterious dark energy actually is that heliocnetrics base all their rhetoric on, you will remain philosophical 'crackpots' as per my last post and I'll leave you flapping in the breeze with your mysteries and philosophies in hand.

So, you think the science of cosmology is all wrong. I get the impression that you also deny the fact of evolution.

[Marina000]

Teh said

Your geocentric model is refuted by empirical data.

You don't seem to be able to get past first base.......You keep back flashing to the time of Copernicus and grabbing that lonely straw.

This geocentric model is NOT refuted at all. This model could not possibly be worse than your BB. You keep repeating this line of yours adnauseum in parrot fashion. Do you suppose this paper was submitted for publication in a respected science journal if it was based on an already refuted crackpot geocentric model of the sun revolving around the earth.

You are being ridiculous in desperation, and it is showing.


Enter two mathematicians, Blake Temple and Joel Smoller. Their results, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, suggest a solution to the accelerating universe that doesn’t require conjuring up anything like “dark matter” — in fact, it doesn’t require conjuring up anything new at all. Their solution works with the current laws of physics we already have.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010 ... -universe/

Here is another scientist that does not appear to like dark energy.

This leads to the conclusion that observations made in an inhomogeneous universe can imply acceleration without the existence of dark energy. I discuss the implications of this finding, and suggest observational tests that could in principle distinguish between the different types of acceleration.

http://cosmology.unige.ch/content/measu ... s-universe


Why don't you put up some of that algorithmic magic full of likely, maybe and perhapses for us to have a look at and see just how good it is not?

Redshift shows planets moving away from the earth. Telescopes that can supposedly peer 13 billion years into the past don't see a void anywhere. The more powerful the telescopes become the more they find galaxies and no void in any direction. That is what is observed. There are alternative models of universal formation that don't need mysterious dark energy to satisfy the law of general relativity. Indeed the observed data is as it would be if earth was in or near the centre of the universe. Big bangers live in a world of complication and algorithmic magic that tries to turn the obvious and observed into a mysterious and complicated illusion.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

In line with the thread topic, the OP suggests that one should not support a side because to do so is not to understand science. I suggest that if one does not have a view to support one meanders aimlesslessly through life opinionless as would scientists. If one is opinionless they are unlikely to offer any contribution, scientific or otherwise, to the matter. So such thinkers are not required. There is nothing wrong with that if the information is not important or means nothing to you. Opinionless is a good place to be.

Is there a way to learn scientific facts without pursuing a view? I don't think so because the scientific method requires a view or question to make predictions around it that are able to be falsified.

If data exists that supports one paradigm over another then one that seeks to understand will be able to form a scientifically informed view. This is not a misunderstanding of the goal of science. Hence no views lead to no need for scientific enquiry. One could ask questions endlessly but never arrive at an answer with no view, question or assumption to test.

I can only find credibility in the OPs scenario if the reasoning behind the not taking a view or side is if the data is not convincing one way or the other. Supporting a view regardless of convincing evidence to the contrary or because it does not align with a philosophical assumption, is a misunderstanding of the goals of science, one being the truth.

-- Updated December 26th, 2012, 3:39 am to add the following --

Marina000: Apologies if you've already explained this, but could you tell me what you mean when you refer to "geocentrism"? To me, "geo" refers to the Earth. But you seem to keep talking about red shifts. Why would these have anything to do with the Earth being the center of the Universe? There are 100 billion stars in our galaxy and a similar number in M31 and presumably large numbers in other galaxies in our local group. In what sense does the red shift of distant galaxies say anything about the status of the Earth?

By geocentric I simply mean the earth being at or near the centre of the universe. Our galaxy would be close enough I suggest to assert geocentricity, the earth being in a statistically special place.

Redshift speaks to galaxies other than our own and it is these that are distancing themselves from the Milky way at various speeds up to and in excess of the speed of light. Inflation is meant to make the impossible possible by the wave of a hand and after the finding of a mystery.

All galaxies apart from a few are showing a red shift which means they are getting further from the earth as if the earth was the centre of the universe. One would have to get out of this galaxy at least to observe if indeed this illusion is the same at any point in space as assumed. This is not yet factual but is implied because we can't have earth in any special place or galaxy near the centre of the universe.

Classical big bang cosmology was overthrown when it was discovered that nearly 70% of the energy in the universe was tied up in a mysterious and difficult to characterize form of dark energy. So here classical BB theory was effectively falsified. This has led to the development of a so-called concordance ΛCDM model which combines detailed data obtained with new telescopes and biased techniques in observational astrophysics with an expanding, density-changing universe to keep BB afloat.

The model assumes that General Relativity is the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. It emerged in the late 1990s as a concordance cosmology, after a period of time when disparate observed properties of the universe appeared mutually inconsistent, and there was no consensus on the makeup of the energy density of the universe. The ΛCDM model is extended by adding cosmological inflation, quintessence, and other elements that are current areas of research in cosmology. Some alternative models challenge the assumptions of the ΛCDM model, such as modified Newtonian dynamics, modified gravity, and large-scale variations in the matter density of the universe.


So rather than simply falsifying the BB theory scientists just made up more stories and now have the universe hovering on the edge of a ball with a gaping void in the middle. Seriously!

So red shift does say something about the statis of the earth, if one lets it and does not complicate it on the basis of dogmatic philosophical principles.

[Steve3007]

By geocentric I simply mean the earth being at or near the centre of the universe.

But why the Earth? Why not another planet on the other side of our galaxy 100000 light yeas away? Or in M31 2000000 light years away, for example? If you're going to single out the Earth as being the center of the universe, based on the fact that it is one of the many planets that inhabit the Milky Way, why not be more specific and single out yourself as being the true center of the Universe? Why do you choose to single out the Earth, but then go no further?

[Marina000]

(Nested quote removed.)


But why the Earth? Why not another planet on the other side of our galaxy 100000 light yeas away? Or in M31 2000000 light years away, for example? If you're going to single out the Earth as being the center of the universe, based on the fact that it is one of the many planets that inhabit the Milky Way, why not be more specific and single out yourself as being the true center of the Universe? Why do you choose to single out the Earth, but then go no further?

To be special, as opposed to the Copernican principle of not special, it takes the earth to be located in a special place, that being at or near the centre of the universe which statistically is unlikely as per chance.

If Messier 81 was in the centre of the universe then it would be special along with any planets within, and not the milky way and certainly not the earth. Due to the construction of a galaxy being in the centre is not a safe place. There are supposedly black holes and all sorts of things going on there. Earth only needs to be in a galaxy that is near the centre of the universe to claim a special location and geocentricity, and if earth ends up being in or close to the centre, as some models suggest, all the better.

http://evidencepress.com/short-answers/ ... -universe/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18851434

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 184749.htm

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/10/03 ... nce-crossr

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010 ... -universe/

But no one can explain why the observed value of the dark energy is 120 orders of magnitude smaller than what's predicted from quantum physics. In fact, the level of fine-tuning needed to produce such a specifically small but non-zero cosmological constant is so absurd that the best explanation anyone's come up with is that our universe is merely one of an infinite number of universes.

According to Clifton, the problem may not lie with cosmologists' observations, but with their assumptions - namely, the Copernican Principle, which says we don't occupy a special place in the cosmos, and that the distribution of matter is homogeneous, so any given region of the universe is more or less the same as any other.

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/space/ ... -void.html

I suggest the Copernican principle is going to be one of the biggest philosophical woopsies so called scientists have ever made. This will serve them right as they have used a philosophy as a guiding light that actually put blinkers over their eyes and their entire work. As scientists they should have known better to restrict the fields of scientific enquiry to a myth that would have discarded any support for geocentricity as erroneous on principle.

A geocentric model is going to come, with researchers kicking and screaming, but it will come. I believe this because in the end there are still scientists that are curious to know the truth regardless of truth being fairly confronting to some and overturning current cosmological theory. This is already being seen. I believe that struggle as they may, eventually the truth will have to be dealt with and will no longer be able to be hand waved away by increasing brands and reels of sticky tape that hold a convoluted and overly complicated theory that relies on a mystery, together.

Without mysteries and nonsense observation shows earth to appear to be in or near the centre of the universe and that is very likely because it is.

I wish to know the truth. I wish to know the truth because as a species that can make meaning of the world I am curious to know the reality. The earth is either special in some or many ways or it isn't. If the truth has theist implications then all the better however geocentricity is not theistically required.

There is ample observed evidence to form a geocentric view. Regardless of the Copernican STOP light, I see many researchers sick to death of applying sticky tape and complicated convolutions to current BB theory and are off to get something together than actually makes scientific sense and does not rely on mysteries. The biggest problem is funding the research and the fact that entire careers have been made on the back of big bang cosmology.

Anyway I think the philosophers here want to talk about other stuff that likely also has nothing to do with science like taking a view is not understanding science. I suggest we need to take a view to meet the scientific method lest science be stuck at the philosophical point with no advancement of knowledge. I have offered my opinion as requested and it seems not many agree. So I may say thanks for the discussion to you and all, and see ya all around. .