Heliocentrism an Anti-Christian Hoax?

page: 6
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 




So I probably need to change the timing on my representation of Mars.


Yeah. You have Mars orbiting Earth once about every two or three days.

How does your model explain retrograde motion?




posted on Sep, 19 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



So I probably need to change the timing on my representation of Mars.

Yeah. You have Mars orbiting Earth once about every two or three days.
How does your model explain retrograde motion?

I probably should have explained that video a little.
I was planning on making another one right away to show view angles and things, but suffered a setback with the orbit speed thing.
I do not go with the stationary Earth view. I think the earth rotates, giving us day and night but that the sun goes around Earth once a year. Mars goes around every two years.
As for the retrograde, I need to get the speed of Mars fixed for that.

Or, maybe not.
My next step for video making was going to be adding the shadows.
I think I may have just dis-proven my own theory.

We do not see phases of Mars like we do on Venus, so I should ask Jeffrey Grupp for $200.
Edit: can not do that because I only am invalidating my own personal model and not Jeff's, which is the Brahe model.

I need to fix the speed of Mars before completely condemning it, maybe it would end up being further along so that there is only a tiny bit of shadow which is allowable by current scientific understanding.

Additional Note: I found a program that calculates orbits so I am starting over, to make a more scientific video version.



edit on 20-9-2010 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





As for the retrograde, I need to get the speed of Mars fixed for that.


The speed of Mars isn't the problem. The viewing position of the observer is the problem.

You do realize that people worked on this problem for thousands of years? Constructing ever more complicated devices to show the motions of not just Mars but also Jupiter and the inner planets.

You can of course construct such a device, with gears and cams and delay loops built in, especially in software. The problem is that is doesn't solve any real world problems except on the most superficial level of a child looking up at the night sky. You certainly cannot write down a formula that elegantly explains the motion of all planets in the solar system.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 07:56 AM
link   
reply to post by rnaa
 

The problem is that is doesn't solve any real world problems except on the most superficial level of a child looking up at the night sky.
My point would be that no one has a monopoly on truth, be it The Church, or Corporate / Government run Science.
I don't plan on devoting too much time on this, one way or the other. I am taking up a challenge that was presented by Jeff, if everything we are taught by the designated authorities on knowledge are right, or if anyone has the right to call themselves "right".



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 





My point would be that no one has a monopoly on truth, be it The Church, or Corporate / Government run Science. I don't plan on devoting too much time on this, one way or the other. I am taking up a challenge that was presented by Jeff, if everything we are taught by the designated authorities on knowledge are right, or if anyone has the right to call themselves "right".


It depends on what you define as 'rightness'. In science, 'rightness' is defined as 'a model that works'. If you have two or more models that work then, and only then, a tie breaker comes into play: Occam's Razor - the simplest one is the best one. That doesn't imply that the more complicated model doesn't work, it just means that the simpler model is better. New information may tilt the balance to the more complicated model.

In the case of Geocentric v Solarcentric, even if you could produce a Geocentric model that does work (in spite of Humanities best thinkers for many thousands of years failing), Occam's Razor is so far on the side of the Solarcentric model that it would render it an interesting, but ultimately pointless footnote in the history of science, simply because the Solarcentric model is manifestly simpler to use and produce results than any possible Geocentric model.

In science, no one claims a monopoly on being 'right'. Science is 'done' in the open, anyone with competent skills can review science results and refute the findings or build on the findings.

I think I can preempt your complaint on that last paragraph by saying that I do not consider work done in the labs of private corporations and hidden under the cloak of intellectual capital as science; neither do I consider work done in the labs of military establishments as science. I consider both 'technology exploitation'; science is open to all, or it isn't science (IMHO).

edit on 20/9/2010 by rnaa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Anyone trying to present kinematic evidence (such as retrograde motion of Mars) to support the heliocentric system simply does not understand relative motion.

Shifting the stationary co-ordinate system from the sun to the Earth doesn't make any difference as to what an observer on Earth would see in the heavens.

You can make anything the centre of the system and you will see exactly th same things from Earth. You can make the international space station the centre of the universe and you will still see the same things from Earth, including retrograde motion of mars.

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance."

"Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic (stationary Earth) theory is "wrong in any meaningful sense. The two theories...are physically equivalent to one another."

- Sir Fred Hoyle, world renowned astronomer.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ArmorOfGod
 


There is no data-base to make an accurate model to test the theories.
I think that was what Jeff Grupp was saying and I think he is right.
People look at Mars and can know which direction it is at any given point buy not the distance.



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Before I read all 6 pages of responses to you and your post, I have to say that you must be trolling.

I'll go ahead and read the 6 pages to find out....



posted on Feb, 9 2012 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Wise Man
 



I go with Geocentric.


Let's hope this is a joke.

Or atleast a real scientific attempt at trying to prove geocentricity.




My research shows me that Heliocentric garbage for the sun worshipers so they stuck it in their Britannica.
By the way, the only official word of Heliocentric is the Rockefeller published Encyclopedia Britannica which also used to claim Christopher Columbus discovered America.


What are you talking about? Who are sun worshipers?

Because it's proven that planet's revolve around stars?

Huh?

Before I even start, I have to ask...

Do you understand what the words "Universe" , "Galaxy" , "Solar System" , mean? Or what the word "evidence" means?






Some multi-billion dollar Geocentric project is going on in the Middle East right now to prove Geocentricity.


That project has been going on for thousands of years and is called Is!am

It's been a stalled project with no progress, with costs counted in human life, not petty money.





After listing groups of so called Mathematicians and Astronomers that support Heliocentricism , the people they work for and their agendas fall into the "compulsive liars and occult related" group who I don't trust and have been know for printing lies.



lol, lol You havn't listed anything.



However there are plenty of highly Educated Mathematicians and Astronomers who deal with Geocentric only. They fall into more trust worthy groups of people most working and researching for non-profit and usually not affiliated with a big corporation.



Post some evidence / proof



My main reason for be Geocentric is the Bible which always turns out to be correct in the end.




Oh God!



By the way. There is a reason NASA uses Geocentric math for all their space research and missions. Because Heliocentric is a pile of crap.
NASA does not account for the world spinning at 1450 km and 66,660 mph orbit speed around the sun when they launch space missions, they use Geocentric Math only. All the Math points at Geocentric. The Theory Of Relativity is trash today.



Your a lost cause.





But to each his own. I certainly don't try to convince anyone of Geocentricity because 8 years ago I would have pass it off as madness.



And why is that



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
as there are multiple geocentrist threads - i have ellected to make a single rebuttal :

threrad link



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:32 AM
link   
reply to post by JoshNorton
 


Why do you guys keep saying astrology?
Don't you mean astronomy?

Just because the catholic church opposed it doesn't mean it was a conspiracy against christianity. The Earth doesn't have to be the center of the universe for a God to exist.. or not.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 

. . . I have to say that you must be trolling.

The thread was based on actual events, which was Jeff Grupp and his Anti-Matter internet radio program where he is a college lecturer and in academia and as a point about what he thinks of academia, he used an example of the adoption of science a theory that seemed to prove the stupidity of the Church, even though there is no real evidence that it is the only valid theory out there.
My point is that heliocentism is a theory, just like evolution is a theory.
What caused me to start the thread is that Jeff is offering the first one who can prove the heliocentrism theory, $100.
The stipulation is it has to be based on something other than what comes from NASA, which he does not think is trust worthy, being overrun by corrupt officials.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

The Earth doesn't have to be the center of the universe for a God to exist.. or not.

We understand that but what was at stake was the authority of the Church and maybe they were wrong to get involved in scientific matters but probably did to combat what they thought was idolatry.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

. . . rebuttal . . .

Make a scan of the check you get from Jeff and post it here please, when you get it.

(of course after blocking out the account number and things like that)
edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by Confusion42
 

. . . I have to say that you must be trolling.

The thread was based on actual events, which was Jeff Grupp and his Anti-Matter internet radio program where he is a college lecturer and in academia and as a point about what he thinks of academia, he used an example of the adoption of science a theory that seemed to prove the stupidity of the Church, even though there is no real evidence that it is the only valid theory out there.
My point is that heliocentism is a theory, just like evolution is a theory.
What caused me to start the thread is that Jeff is offering the first one who can prove the heliocentrism theory, $100.
The stipulation is it has to be based on something other than what comes from NASA, which he does not think is trust worthy, being overrun by corrupt officials.


Who is this "Jeff Grupp" and why is his Anti-Matter internet radio program important at all in any way in regards to heliocentric being correct?

The $100 challenge you are talking about, can you post the rules?

Next, There Is A Huge Difference Between The Definition Of "Theory" (general), and "Scientific Theory"

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

A scientific theory has been tested repeatedly and is correct for all observed results.

A common theory (as used in everyday language) is just a guess.

This thread is FULL of evidence..... Hell, all it takes is a cheap telescope, and you yourself can SEE that the Sun does NOT revolve around the Earth.

You know, I am beginning to think that the flat earth / young earth / geocentric / etc. crowd has a very narrow minded, and dare I say "weak" embrace / faith of their God.

A TRUE faith in God would not only require belief in Evolution and Heliocentrism, but, dare I say..

A true faith in God requires one to seek knowledge through facts and such.


Thinking that science is evil, evidence and facts are Satan's illusions, and the answer to any complex question is "God don it" shows a lack of faith IMO.

Seeking knowledge yourself and not blinding believing things is the true test of faith.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Confusion42
 


It's been five hundred years or something since heliocentrism was adopted to it is not exactly edgy to think the earth orbits the sun.
Now the tables are turned and being independent means thinking about the possibility we are now being lied to and actually the hydrogen sphere orbits the iron sphere.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
I'll up jmdewey one in wild theories. What if the stars were not really stars, but mere holes in a hollow shell which contains the solar system? These holes admit light from beyond the shell.

BTW, you may find it of interest that over at thunderbolts.com, the home of the Electric Universe Model, they consider the Sun to be an electrical discharge phenomenon. Forget those nuclear furnaces.
edit on 11-2-2012 by Lazarus Short because: lah-de-dah



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


for £65 [ GBP ] i am not jumping through the hoops of ablowhard offering a pittance and expecting me to `proove it `esp when his caveat of no nasa data stacks the deck from the start



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


en.wikipedia.org...


Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to celestial objects including to the Moon, the Sun, and to stars beyond the Solar System.



en.wikipedia.org...

Astronomical spectroscopy is the technique of spectroscopy used in astronomy. The object of study is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to derive many properties of distant stars and galaxies, such as their chemical composition, but also their motion by Doppler shift measurements.




The parallax effect shows that the earth moves on a circular path oh and it shows the stars are at different distances and spectroscopy shows stars are different light sources – so that also deals with the ‘stars are pin holes in the curtain of night’ thing

Both these techniques can be done by armature astronomers

Please have the money sent to any atheist charity of your choice



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by racasan
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


en.wikipedia.org...


Astronomers use the principle of parallax to measure distances to celestial objects including to the Moon, the Sun, and to stars beyond the Solar System.



en.wikipedia.org...

Astronomical spectroscopy is the technique of spectroscopy used in astronomy. The object of study is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to derive many properties of distant stars and galaxies, such as their chemical composition, but also their motion by Doppler shift measurements.




The parallax effect shows that the earth moves on a circular path oh and it shows the stars are at different distances and spectroscopy shows stars are different light sources – so that also deals with the ‘stars are pin holes in the curtain of night’ thing

Both these techniques can be done by armature astronomers

Please have the money sent to any atheist charity of your choice


Anyone trying to present kinematic evidence (such as steller parallax) to support the heliocentric system simply does not understand relative motion.

Steller parallax is seen and explained by both models. the only difference between the two models is a change in perspective...which doesnt change anything visually.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join