Please provide a Geocentric diagram
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
How the hell would a geocentric system work? Logic follows that the earth couldn't possibly hold the sun in orbit. Much less the other planets. The moon is about the only thing conceivable.

I love it how AE seemingly pulls this shit from thin air.

Love ya man, you are hilarious.

[Image: 0013382F-E507-48AE-906B-53008666631C-757...cc3639.jpg]
Credit goes to UndercoverAtheist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2013, 11:22 PM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
(18-02-2013 10:56 PM)Atothetheist Wrote:  How the hell would a geocentric system work? Logic follows that the earth couldn't possibly hold the sun in orbit. Much less the other planets. The moon is about the only thing conceivable.

I love it how AE seemingly pulls this shit from thin air.

Love ya man, you are hilarious.
I asked about the Earth not being big enough to sustain everything orbiting it.


I was told that everybody has lied, and everything in space is much smaller than where they are reported to be.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-02-2013, 04:46 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
CHL's latest offering.



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
21-02-2013, 07:25 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
He set it as private for some reason.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 08:09 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
Oh - ok. Here's the video again. It looks like he took it down for some reason - maybe an edit - and put it back up again with a different video URL:



Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-02-2013, 08:16 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
(21-02-2013 07:25 AM)hedgehog648 Wrote:  He set it as private for some reason.

[Image: 4K9VKyu.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 04:24 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
If I remember correctly, Aristotle's geocentric model contained 55 layers upon which identified celestial bodies moved around Earth. And that was just what could be seen in the sky in Ancient Greece.

If it took him 55 layers to explain it, I doubt any theists have the capacity to begin to explain the amount of celestial bodies we have identified today. I'd be surprised if geocentric believers could even count to 55.

Science, logic and how they destroy religious arguments @ http://scepticalprophet.wordpress.com/

To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.
- Isaac Asimov.
Faith means not wanting to know what is true.
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2013, 08:30 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
Well, not only that - accurate observations disqualify Aristotle's model. A geocentric model that agrees with reality would need to be much more complex. Beyond that we now measure distance to nearby stars using the parallax from the location of the earth for measurements taken 6 months apart. The model would need to explain that. Beyond that we have inserted our own objects into the heavens with spacecraft on other planets or orbiting other planets as well as orbiting our on in ways that would require even more complex answers.

No one is doing science to develop and update a geocentric model in line with new facts, to put it in CHL's terms, "because geocentricism is bullshit".

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 04:23 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
I have found that very few school text books explain this properly. It is to do with the differential of the gravitational forces on different parts of the earth. If you use Newtons equation on the near side of the earth compared to the far side, then you will find that the differences in the forces are far greater with the moon than with the sun on account of the fact that the sun is so much further away.

The trick is not to think of the earth as being fixed in space. It is actually falling (for want of a better word) constantly towards the moon but the side near to the moon is falling faster than the earth is falling and the far side is falling slower. Hence we have two bulges which is why we have two tides per day as the earth rotates.

As this is correctly explained in the school the thick brain of the student may spark into what the student interprets to be understanding and they may conclude that because they have grasped something which formerly they could not understand that therefore the thing which they grasped must be true.

This is of course a logical fallacy, but is the way that much of science works.

Of course this explanation of tides is utterly fanciful because some parts of the world have no tides and other parts have only one tide per day. You would expect that in this scenario that biggest tides should be at the elliptical however the reality is that the biggest tides occur near the poles. Tide maps also do not show circular bands but irregularly placed blotches where high tides occur in random at various places throughout the world. The inexplicable nature of tide maps is attributed to variations in the sea floor but this is utterly without proof and no computer model has ever demonstrated this to be the case. Evidence of this is that tides are not predicted on the basis of the motions of the sun and moon and the topology of the sea floor, but rather are mere recordings of previous tide readings which repeat every 19 years with astonishing regularity and accuracy.

The fact that the moon and sun also repeat their positions in a 19 year time cycle may add weight to the idea that the tides are linked to the motions of the sun and moon, but this is merely circumstantial evidence. The fact is that the moon as a cause of tides is JUST A THEORY and a preposterous one at that. More accurate is to say that we just don't know what causes the tides. But that is unthinkable to even suggest that and starts to expose modern science as a system of belief as doddery as a house of cards.
(05-02-2013 06:28 AM)AtheismExposed Wrote:  Ok then answer me this:

Using Newton's equation to work out the gravitational attraction between two bodies (and putting in the heliocentrist's own numbers for the mass and distance of the sun), the gravitational force between the earth and sun is two orders of magnitude greater than the force between the earth and the moon.

Why, then, does the moon cause much larger tides on the earth's oceans than the sun? Given that the sun is tugging at us 100 times harder?

Try it yourself,

F = G(m1*m2 / r^2)

where m1 and m2 are the masses of the bodies and r is the distance between them.

For the earth and moon, the magic number is 1.982E20, for the earth and sun it's 3.529E22. Surely the sun should be causing tidal surges almost 200 times larger than what we get from the moon?

Or can we safely conclude that the Atheist's numbers for the mass and distance of the sun are RUBBISH?
On this last point I am quite happy to come to this conclusion also.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2013, 04:51 AM
RE: Please provide a Geocentric diagram
(24-01-2013 12:21 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Ok, AtheismExposed and any other geocentrists on here. Please show me what YOU think the universe looks like. I want to see diagrams which explain the positions and motions of the following bodies:

Earth
Earth's Moon
The Sun
Mercury
Venus
Mars
Ceres
Asteroids in the Asteroid Belt
Asteroids in Jupiter's Trojan Points
Jupiter
Io
Europa
Ganymede
Callisto
Saturn
Titan
Tethys
Enceladus
Saturn's rings
Uranus
Neptune
Pluto
Comets (use Halley's comet)
Kuiper Belt Objects
The stars (grouped together for your convenience)
Also please explain:

Seasons
Planetary retrograde motion
Meteor showers
Phases of the Moon
Phases of Venus, Mercury, Mars, and Jupiter
Why Mercury seems to move back and forth within 20 degrees of the sun
Why Venus seems to move back and forth within 30 degrees of the sun
Why planets move near the ecliptic (a plane described by the sun's celestial equator) and not the Earth's celestial equator
The positions of the stellar bodies are identical in both the heliocentric and the geocentric. They are merely co-ordinate transformations using a different frame of reference. Modern geocentrists tend to use Tycho Brahes model of the solar system whilst heliocentrics giggle like school children at Ptolemy's model. In fact Keplar used all of Tycho Brahes measurements to demonstrate the heliocentric model. All this proves is that the two models are both equivalent with respect to the relative positions of the stellar objects.

In Tycho Brahes model the earth is the centre of the universe (which should be obvious to everyone), the sun orbits the earth and the planets orbit the sun.
You won't find a physicist who will disagree with me on this point.
This is why Albert Einstein wrote.
"Albert Einstein
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “The sun is at rest and the earth moves, “or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest,” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems” The Evolution of Physics Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld."

(24-01-2013 12:21 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Stellar parallax
This is an interesting one and is one of the biggest hoaxes in modern astronomy. The Hipparcos satellite recorded 50% of the parallax readings were negative which is not possible. In one of the biggest cover ups in scientific history the readings were "adjusted" or I would call it cooked to make them all positive. What a croc.
The existence of negative stellar parallax proves that the stars are much closer than we are being told. And if in fact the stars are very much closer than we are being told then that is proof that we are in the centre of the universe.
The reason astronomers have calculated the universe to be such an enormous size is to mask the almost complete lack of stellar parallax which is what caused Tycho Brahe to conclude that we were in the centre of the universe.

(24-01-2013 12:21 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Also please tell me what physical laws govern these motions and phenomena, or if it simply requires a continuous miracle.
Gravity is a continuous miracle. Nobody understands what causes objects to fall to the ground. Gravity has all the characteristics of a miracle. It cannot be shielded. It constantly pulls objects down to it in perpetuity, never lessening its force. If we cannot understand a force that we can observe right under our nose then why do we suppose that we can understand the forces which govern the motions of the sun and planets? Observing the motions of the planets and predicting their positions is not the same thing as understanding the causes of those motions. If indeed the cause of the motion is supernatural then what of it? If that is the truth then we will never understand it by the application of science.

Your premise here is that there must be a physical explanation for all things. This is of course a tenet of science but it is a false premise and cannot itself be proven. This is what is called a philosophy of science, that everything must have a physical explanation. It will surprise you to learn that more of science is driven by philosophies such as this than you would like to believe, and that most of these philosophies are anti-God, anti-Scripture, anti-Christian and anti-Church.

(24-01-2013 12:21 AM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Please use as many separate diagrams as you need to explain these phenomena, and if you can demonstrate anything mathematically, please, please, please do in as much detail as you can muster. Also include any observations and measurements you've made, especially if these observations might contradict the observations of "conspiring" astronomers.


I look forward to your response.
I recommend that you purchase Robert Sungenis book Galileo was Wrong for all of this information. I don't agree with him on every point but if you are truly interested in these questions then you will consult his book rather than expecting bloggers with html editor to reproduce his book. But you won't read his book because you have no real personal interest in learning. Rather you seek to discredit geocentrists even though you know practically nothing about the subject. Learn the subject first and then ask genuine questions
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: