Sunday, February 7, 2016
Response to "A Geocentrist vs. Relativity" by Martymer81
1:22 Have you actually read the original Michelson-Morley paper? I would say no, because your 5-point outline is a complete misrepresentation of it.
So they just have more accurate data that there is no relative motion between the Earth and the ether. Or that Fresnel’s hypothesis of a STATIONARY ether is incorrect. So what? Repetition of the same experiment with more sensitive equipment does not change the hypothesis of the original experiment or its conclusion. An increase in the accuracy does not change the fact that the experiment is only designed to detect the relative motion of the Earth and the ether, NOT to detect whether the ether actually exists. You DO realize this, right? As I said to some other commenter, the failure of a car’s speedometer to detect relative motion between the car and the road is not evidence that there is no road. It is evidence that there is no relative motion. Anything more is your own explanation of WHY there is no relative motion.Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. NGC 6205 and CoolHardLogic, Part 1
Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic
NGC 6205 wrote:
I agree with you
that a geocentric reference frame is a valid reference frame. I use it when I
observe the night sky. However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric reference frame is debunked by
demostrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely
valid. That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G geocentrism claims
that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what absolute means. It claims that geocentrism is more valid
than heliocentrism, which is false. It is actually no more valid than
marscentrism or venuscentrism or jupitercentrism. If you were to build a
"Neo-Tychonic" model (which I suppose you adhere to) with
Mars at its center, and then go to Mars, it would make exactly
the same number of successful predictions as a geocentric Tychonic model used
on Earth. Furthermore, you can take a simulation of the Neo-Tychonian model and
let it run. Pause it. Go to the Sun and fix your position (your view of the
simulation) above the Sun. Unpause the simulation. What you would see is pure
heliocentrism. That means that the Neo-Tychonic model is actually a
heliocentric model in which the observer is fixed relative to the Earth, rather
than the Sun. It also goes vice-versa: heliocentrism is a Neo-Tychonic model in
which the observer is fixed relative to the Sun rather than the Earth. Besides
the position of the observer, the two models are completely equivalent.
This is why absolute geocentrism is false: because there are many
different valid reference frames besides the geocentric one, while the capital
G geocentrism claims that it is the one true reference frame, more real or
correct than other reference frames. Special and general relativity are not
required to prove that absolute geocentrism is false. And this is why you are biased and a pseudoscientist. You adhere to one
reference frame absolutely and reject the others, despite the fact that other
reference frames are completely valid. Only reason I can find for this is
religious in nature. If your reason for adhering to geocentrism is not
religious, then please tell me which is? Why are you adhering to geocentrism as
more true than heliocentrism or marscentrism or jupitercentrism?
Scott Reeves
wrote:
“However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric
reference frame is debunked by demostrating that there are other reference
frames which are also completely valid.”
You are correct. I do not understand that the absolute
Geocentric reference frame is debunked by demonstrating that there are other
reference frames which are also completely valid. I do, however, understand
that it is debunked by demonstrating that there are other reference frames
which are also completely valid and equal to the absolute Geocentric reference
frame. Which has not yet been done.
I completely understand the concept of reference frames, and
I do not deny that every conceivable reference frame is a valid reference
frame. But the simple existence of other valid reference frames does not mean
that all valid reference frames are equal.
“That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G
geocentrism claims that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what
absolute means.”
That may be your concept of what absolute G means, but to me
it refers to absolute rest vs. relative motion, and actual center vs. relative
center. Relativistic geocentrism says that there is no actual center to the
universe and all motion in the universe is relative, with no absolute motion,
period; while absolute Geocentrism says the universe has a center and Earth is
stationary there, and all motion in the universe is relative to the frame of
absolute rest as established by the absolutely motionless Earth. That’s the
distinction between absolute Geocentrism and relativistic geocentrism. Don’t
quote me on that, though; what’s important here is the concept of absolute vs.
relative motion, and an absolute center vs. a multitude of observer-dependent
centers.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. MomoTheBellyDancer, Part 1
My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism
Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):
“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving
around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already
plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian
physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”
We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a
geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is
revolving around the sun.
As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian
calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the
Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen
to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is
revolving around the sun.
As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of
the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did
they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.
“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of
unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear
then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with
the model with the least amount of assumptions.”
Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not
a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid
as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically
saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames
are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.
Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the
geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how
can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model
that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an
observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a
model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model
MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by
such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity
is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.
MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:
"Stellar aberration
doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."
Then explain how we could get
stellar aberration that way.
"choosing to make
Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean
that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."
Then present a model in which
the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with
as few assumptions as possible.
"Occam’s razor is a
philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the
universe."
Irrelevant. It states that we should choose
the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why
would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same
facts just as well, if not better?
Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. Nope, Part 1
Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic
Scott Reeves wrote (in a general comment directed at CoolHardLogic)::
Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and many other reputable
scientists, say geocentrism works, but we're supposed to believe you that it
doesn't?
Nope wrote:
No, you're supposed to believe the evidence gathered through
observations, which clearly points out that geocentrism is bollocks. Also, I'm
pretty sure none of those fellas actually believed for a second that
geocentrism is an even remotely plausible explanation, but who knows? Even Newton said hillariously
stupid shit back then so yeah.
Scott Reeves wrote:
Here is the ColdHardTruth that all you relativity supporters
are going to have to accept if you want to be relativists: there is absolutely
not a single shred of evidence you can put forward to disprove the geocentric
reference frame. The geocentric reference frame is a perfectly valid reference
frame in relativity.
The only thing you can do is try to talk me and other
Geocentrists out of advocating an absolute Geocentric reference frame. How do
you do this? You point out that relativity forbids an absolute reference frame,
and then try to convince us that relativity has a hundred years of empirical
evidence behind it. You tell us that it is the most well-tested theory in the
history of science, and only a fool would reject an argument with that
magnitude of empirical weight behind it. And if those tactics don’t work, you
begin to pile on the mockery and the public humiliation in attempt to silence
us.
That is ALL you can do. You all keep trying to prove that
the Earth is in motion and the geocentric reference frame is invalid. News
flash: that is most definitely not going to happen. If you think it will, you
do not understand relativity. Trying to disprove the geocentric reference frame
by saying that the Earth is definitely in motion is just the opposite of what I
do by advocating the absolute Geocentric frame: you are trying to prove a frame
of absolute motion. So by denying geocentrism in any form you’re also working
hard to try to disprove relativity.
Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. EmperorZelos, Part 1
Comments on YouTube video “Heliocentric Vs ConcaveGeocentric Model Of Our Universe” by Godrules
Scott Reeves
wrote in response to an earlier comment by Mike Vizioz:
"There is
absolutely no reason to believe in something like that unless you are out to
prove the validity of the bible."
How about a
desire to be scientifically accurate? The choice is either absolute Geocentrism
or relativity. Since relativity requires the existence of an unscientific
concept, namely the unobservable universe, to be valid, relativity is not a
scientific theory, yet is presented as scientific fact. Therefore the choice is
either absolute Geocentrism or pseudoscience.
From a religious
and Biblical perspective (yes, I am a Christian) I couldn't care less whether
we're at the center of the universe or not. Makes no difference to my belief in
God. I only want to follow the scientifically sound view of the universe, and
protest all you want, that view is Geocentrism.
Scott Reeves
wrote in response to an earlier comment by EmperorZelos:
Prove it. Have
you gone to other points in the universe to check your assertion?
EmperorZelos wrote:
EVERY point of
the universe will be seen as the center you idiot and big bang/ relativity does
nto depend upon a larger universe. Go back to highschool
Scott Reeves
wrote:
Prove that every
point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship
and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the
Copernican principle.
And Big
Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe. If we're at the center of
the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are, then in order
for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe,
there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to
high school.
Emperor Zelos wrote:
"Prove that every point in the universe will be
seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light
years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle."
It's demonstrable
by the laws of physics, they are frame independed which means all points are
equal.
"And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger
universe"
It doesn't, it
might be a conclusion but it's not a dependence.
"If we're at the center of the observable universe,
which science acknowledges that we are"
It doesn't, cite
a single peer reviewed article from a reputable journal that says we are the
center.
"then in order for us not to be motionless at the
center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe
beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school."
That's a
non-sequitor.
The ceocentric
model is dead and easily done so by simple newtonian physics because the earth
moves around the sun, which moves around the center of the galaxy. We've
measured these speeds and much else.
Geocentrism: The Debates Introduction
I'm going to start posting discussions I have had over the past month in the comments sections of various Youtube videos. Of course they're all on the subject of geocentrism and relativity. The illustrious CoolHardLogic even puts in a lengthy appearance.
In a lot of the cases, the other debate participant eventually dropped out, whether it was due to my craziness, their lack of time, or their growing tired of carrying the discussion onward. Or maybe they will eventually get around to responding to dangling response to their previous comments, and just haven't yet. For whatever reason, a lot of the discussions are left hanging, so I'm calling each one "part 1," even though there may never be a subsequent part.
I in no way mean to imply anything at all about the other participant's leaving the discussion; I know life gets in the way, or the debate eventually becomes pointless, or they think things have gotten a little too crazy, or they're in over their heads, or they think I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever reason, nothing against the other commentor, and their leaving the debate shouldn't be construed as an admission of defeat on their part (although predictably and, being human, I do of course consider myself the hands-down winner of every exchange). I appreciate each participant having taken the time to respond to what they did. It has helped to me hone my own arguments.
It should also be noted that I have absolutely no idea who any of my opponents are in "real life." I don't know their educational background - nothing. So I didn't choose to respond to a comment they made because I researched them and found them to be knowledgeable; I merely wanted to respond to something they had said to some other commentor, and so our discussion began.
In each case, I'm going to identify myself and my opponent using "Scott Reeves wrote:" and "[insert name] wrote:" with each participant's section having the words of the opposing participant quoted in bold.
Also, the presence of my comments in a particular video's comments section shouldn't be construed as either agreement or disagreement with the content of that video. Also, any spelling or grammatical errors have been left in and are the "fault" of whoever made them, including myself.
Also, a lot of these debates are quite long, so be sure to click the "read more" link at the bottom to read the whole thing.
Any copyrighted material is used under Fair Use.
In a lot of the cases, the other debate participant eventually dropped out, whether it was due to my craziness, their lack of time, or their growing tired of carrying the discussion onward. Or maybe they will eventually get around to responding to dangling response to their previous comments, and just haven't yet. For whatever reason, a lot of the discussions are left hanging, so I'm calling each one "part 1," even though there may never be a subsequent part.
I in no way mean to imply anything at all about the other participant's leaving the discussion; I know life gets in the way, or the debate eventually becomes pointless, or they think things have gotten a little too crazy, or they're in over their heads, or they think I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever reason, nothing against the other commentor, and their leaving the debate shouldn't be construed as an admission of defeat on their part (although predictably and, being human, I do of course consider myself the hands-down winner of every exchange). I appreciate each participant having taken the time to respond to what they did. It has helped to me hone my own arguments.
It should also be noted that I have absolutely no idea who any of my opponents are in "real life." I don't know their educational background - nothing. So I didn't choose to respond to a comment they made because I researched them and found them to be knowledgeable; I merely wanted to respond to something they had said to some other commentor, and so our discussion began.
In each case, I'm going to identify myself and my opponent using "Scott Reeves wrote:" and "[insert name] wrote:" with each participant's section having the words of the opposing participant quoted in bold.
Also, the presence of my comments in a particular video's comments section shouldn't be construed as either agreement or disagreement with the content of that video. Also, any spelling or grammatical errors have been left in and are the "fault" of whoever made them, including myself.
Also, a lot of these debates are quite long, so be sure to click the "read more" link at the bottom to read the whole thing.
Any copyrighted material is used under Fair Use.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)