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.

One thing to note here is that I believe there could be a center to the universe, establishing an absolute frame of rest, but without the Earth there. In which case, the universe would not be absolutely Geocentric. It would only be relativistically geocentric – relative to the center of the universe, regardless of whether some other planet was at the center or not. But unfortunately for relativity, there is no physical law that requires Earth to be at the center of its own observable universe, yet modern science both empirically and philosophically says that we are. More on that down below.

“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.”

Yes, that is what relativity hypothesizes. Now let’s all go to Mars and test it.

“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.”

Again, that's your concept of what capital G geocentrism claims. But the existence of many different valid reference frames does not make absolute Geocentrism false. Absolute Geocentrism (at least this absolute Geocentrist) does not deny the existence of other reference frames, nor does it claim that it is more real or correct than other reference frames. It only claims that it is absolute, and all other frames must be considered relative to it.

“Special and general relativity are not required to prove that absolute geocentrism is false.”

Correct. They’re required to prove their hypothesis that all reference frames are equal by putting it through the scientific method. They have not yet finished that task. Thus far, they have merely gathered evidence from within a geocentric reference frame, whether it be absolute or relativistic.

“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.”

As I said, I do not reject other reference frames as invalid. I merely say that the absolute Geocentric frame is unique among all frames.

“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?”

Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “more true,” but I can only say again that I regard the absolute Geocentric reference frame as unique and absolute among a multitude of reference frames.

As for why I adhere to absolute Geocentrism, for me, religion and God have nothing to do with my reasons. Here is my reasoning:

Since modern mainstream science admits that we are empirically at the center of our observable universe, then it follows that if our observable universe is actually the ENTIRE universe, then Earth is most definitely motionless at the center of the actual universe, thereby establishing the Earth as an absolute reference frame. Thus, in order for the relativistic geocentric reference frame to be the correct choice when choosing between a relativistic geocentric or an absolute Geocentric frame, relativity must say that everyone is at the center of his/her/its own observable universe, including an observer on a planet at the edge of our observable universe, which observer must therefore be able to see something beyond the edge of our (observers on Earth) observable universe. 

But anything outside our observable universe is…wait for it…unobservable, and so outside the scope of rational scientific inquiry by scientists on Earth. So before relativity can be claimed to have been properly tested by the scientific method, observers on Earth must travel to the edge of our observable universe to make observations confirming that there is a universe beyond Earth’s observable universe, and that that point on the edge is the center of its own observable universe. Conveniently enough for relativity, such a test can never be performed, since according to current cosmological theory, Earthers can never reach the edge, because the edge of our observable universe is expanding away from us in all directions at faster than the speed of light. This makes relativity a pseudo-science, since its proponents wrongly tout it to the public as having been scientifically tested, even though it can never actually be scientifically tested.

Therefore as far as science as practiced by observers on Earth will ever be concerned, the observable universe is all that there is, and therefore we are absolutely at rest at the center of the entire scientifically observable universe.

Look at it this way. If relativists ever find an edge to the universe, that disproves their theory and proves absolute Geocentrism. So your theory cannot allow an edge to the universe, or at least can only allow an edge that is either unreachable by any observer in any reference frame, or is at an infinite distance from Earth, which amounts to the same thing. Therefore relativity can only ever prove absolute Geocentrism, and can never prove itself. To prove itself, relativity must prove that an edge does not exist. And how do you prove that something does not exist? Ask an atheist how he/she empirically proves that God does not exist.

You’ll note that at no time in my argument do I appeal to God or the Bible to decide between absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism. So you are incorrect in your contention that I must be advocating absolute Geocentrism solely on religious grounds. Yes, I am a Christian, but whether we are or are not absolutely at the center of the universe makes no difference to my belief in God or to my ego. I choose the absolute Geocentric frame merely because I don’t want to choose the pseudo-scientific alternative.

NGC 6205 wrote:

I have to say that you make some good points and that your civilized debating style differs much from the debating style and arguments of the vast majority of people promoting, let's be honest, extremely fringe ideas. I commend that. However, I think you've misinterpreted the nature of science. You said: "Therefore relativity can only ever prove absolute Geocentrism, and can never prove itself. To prove itself, relativity must prove that an edge does not exist." Science is not in the job of proving theories. Science is in the job of constructing ever better models, which explain all the phenomena that previous models could explain plus new data previously unexplained. It must also make successful predictions. Simplicity is also valued, although it is not that important. The point is, if you have a successful theory which explains a lot and has never been disporved, you can allow yourself to derive assumptions from the model which you consider true unless disproved, although they have not been proved. For example, until 20 years ago we hadn't found a single planet orbiting a star other than the Sun. But scientists were long before that taking for granted that there are planets orbiting orbiting other stars. Why? Because they were pseudoscientists? Because they were dogmatic? Because they were atheists trying to shake our faith in a personal God? Of course not. They were doing that because that's a conclusion that you derive when you look at the bigger picture: The Sun is an ordinary star with planets, there are many other stars in the galaxy, we can see stars being born from large molecular clouds, we have a sensible theory of the formation of the Solar System, and so on and so on... Given this knowledge, scientists could say: "We can be 95% sure (or 70%, or 99%, it doesn't matter) that there are other planets in the galaxy." Science is all about probabilities. We cannot be 100% sure that there isn't something seriously wrong with the theory of plate tectonics, or quantum mechanics, or any other theory for that matter, but we behave like there isn't, because the probability of there being something wrong with the theories is very low. That's science. If you want absolute proof, go to mathematics or logic, because science cannot give you that. We have the same situation here: We know the fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. We know planets and stars are made of protons and neutrons and electrons, they interact via these forces, the Earth is also made of this stuff. We can see other planets orbiting their stars. They are not at the center of our observable universe by definition, why should the Earth be at the center of the entire universe? Why should the center of the observable universe as seen from the Earth be the center of the entire universe, but not the center of the observable universe as seen from these planets? Given that we know that the Earth is not special in the physical sense (because it's made of the same stuff and subjected to the same forces), there is no reason to believe that it just so happens that the Earth is at the center of the universe. Given the size of the universe, it is much, much more probable that the center of the universe happens to be in some other place, if there is any center at all. It's simply a matter of probabilities. It is not sensible or scientific to adhere to a very low probability model, although it has not been disproved. That's what science says: Geocentrism is simply not sensible or probable, given the big picture, which includes all our knowledge of physics, astronomy and cosmology. It is much more probable that the Earth, being made of the same stuff and subjected to the same forces as the other planets, is in the same situation as them: Not in the center of the universe and orbiting its star like the laws of physics dictate. Absolute proof isn't necessary, and I definitely don't lose sleep over it.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Thanks for your comments. I actually appreciate the opportunity to be challenged to defend what I'm saying.

“Science is not in the job of proving theories. Science is in the job of constructing ever better models, which explain all the phenomena that previous models could explain plus new data previously unexplained. It must also make successful predictions.”

Science is, however, in the job of testing the predictions its theories make, and science has not yet done that with relativity. It has only gathered data from within a geocentric reference frame, which does not speak to the issue of whether the absolute Geocentric or the relativistic geocentric model is correct. The true test of relativity will be made when we leave whichever sort of geocentric reference frame we are currently in.

“We cannot be 100% sure that there isn't something seriously wrong with the theory of plate tectonics, or quantum mechanics, or any other theory for that matter, but we behave like there isn't, because the probability of there being something wrong with the theories is very low.”

Actually, the probability of there being something wrong is NOT very low. We can be 100% sure that there is something seriously wrong with either quantum mechanics or relativity, since they are not compatible. The search for a theory of everything is an implicit admission that we are 100% certain that there is something seriously wrong with one or the other, or possibly both.

“They are not at the center of our observable universe by definition, why should the Earth be at the center of the entire universe?”

Because Earth is by definition and by empirical evidence at the center of our observable universe, and anything beyond our observable universe, the so-called “entire” universe, is unobservable and thus beyond the realm of science. Why should the Earth, against all empirical evidence, NOT be at the center of the entire scientifically-observable universe?

“Why should the center of the observable universe as seen from the Earth be the center of the entire universe, but not the center of the observable universe as seen from these planets?”

Because if our observable universe IS the entire universe, and we have no empirical evidence that it is not, then obviously a planet near the edge of the entire universe cannot possibly be at the center of its own observable universe. Why should a point on the circumference of a circle not be at the center?

“Given that we know that the Earth is not special in the physical sense (because it's made of the same stuff and subjected to the same forces)…”

Actually, if Earth is at the center of the entire universe, then it’s NOT subject to the same forces as all the other stars and planets. It’s the only planet in the universe that would feel the combined gravitational force of all the mass in the universe, equally from all directions.

“Given the size of the universe, it is much, much more probable that the center of the universe happens to be in some other place, if there is any center at all. It's simply a matter of probabilities.”

You mean it’s more probable that the center of the universe would be in some other place where there is no life similar to ours? Given the size of the solar system, it’s much more probable that humans would have arisen on some other planet. Oh wait, it's not, because science recognizes that Earth occupies a special zone in the solar system. We’re in the so-called Goldilocks Zone precisely because science recognizes that there is something special about this narrow strip of space around our sun. If the center of the universe happens to be a similar sort of Goldilocks Zone (maybe a motionless, non-rotating Earth is the most stable place in the universe, and thus somehow most conducive to life, I don’t know), then it would actually be more probable that we would be at the center than elsewhere in our universe.

Your statement about probabilities is meaningless unless you’re willing to claim that science knows all there is to know about how the universe works. If we’re at the center against all probability, then it either means we’re exceptionally lucky, or we don’t have the proper information to accurately estimate the probabilities.

“It is not sensible or scientific to adhere to a very low probability model, although it has not been disproved.”

Again, it’s only a low-probability model if you arrogantly assume that you have a complete understanding of the universe. What your’e implicitly saying is that it’s more sensible and scientific to choose the relativistic geocentric model over the absolute Geocentric model. But it’s not sensible or scientific to choose the model that is part of a theory that has at least a 50% probability of ultimately being shown to be incorrect (quantum mechanics and relativity can’t both be correct).

“That's what science says: Geocentrism is simply not sensible or probable, given the big picture, which includes all our knowledge of physics, astronomy and cosmology.”

That’s not what science says. That’s what people who assume they have an accurate big picture say.

“It is much more probable that the Earth, being made of the same stuff and subjected to the same forces as the other planets, is in the same situation as them: Not in the center of the universe and orbiting its star like the laws of physics dictate.”

The laws of physics dictate that a system of bodies orbits the center of mass of the entire system. Which is what our sun is doing: it’s orbiting the center of mass of the entire universe. And Earth happens to be located at that center. That's why Earth is the only place in the universe where you'll see a star appearing to orbit one of its smaller planets.

CoolHardLogic wrote:

"Science is, however, in the job of testing the predictions its theories make, and science has not yet done that with relativity. It has only gathered data from within a geocentric reference frame,."

False. Measurements validating GR are not confined to Earth.

"The true test of relativity will be made when we leave whichever sort of geocentric reference frame we are currently in. "

No. And you have no a priori reason to assume a "geocentric reference frame". You're just being intellectually dishonest.

"We can be 100% sure that there is something seriously wrong with either quantum mechanics or relativity, since they are not compatible."

False dichotomy. Both are extensively tested and work within the domains to which they apply. Germ Theory is incompatible with GR. The inability to reconcile them into a single relativistic germ theory doesn't mean that one is wrong. Again you're being intellectually dishonest.

"The search for a theory of everything is an implicit admission that we are 100% certain that there is something seriously wrong with one or the other, or possibly both. "

No, it isn't. Your conclusion is a non-sequitur borne of your desire for your conclusion to be correct.

"Because Earth is by definition and by empirical evidence at the center of our observable universe,..."

By definition? Regardless, you appear to utterly fail to understand the concept of a light horizon, and the simple fact that any observer anywhere in the Universe will appear to be at its centre.

"Because if our observable universe IS the entire universe, and we have no empirical evidence that it is not, then obviously a planet near the edge of the entire universe cannot possibly be at the center of its own observable universe."

Argument from ignorance and special pleading. But thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand light and that you appear to think that the Universe is a fixed size bubble with an edge. That's just priceless.

"Why should a point on the circumference of a circle not be at the center? "

Because the universe is neither a circle nor a sphere with an edge.

"Actually, if Earth is at the center of the entire universe, "

And sinc eyou have no reason to assume the former, everything you said after this was completely pointless.

"then it’s NOT subject to the same forces as all the other stars and planets."

Special pleading.

"It’s the only planet in the universe that would feel the combined gravitational force of all the mass in the universe, equally from all directions."

Assuming your conclusion as your premise. Bad idea.

"We’re in the so-called Goldilocks Zone precisely because science recognizes that there is something special about this narrow strip of space around our sun."

And so now you want to co-opt science when it suits you. How disingenuous. Also, the strip to which you refer isn't as narrow as you would like to imply to sate your apparent need to feel special.

"If the center of the universe happens to be a similar sort of Goldilocks Zone "

Again, you have no reason to even suppose that as a premise other than your desire to engage in circular reasoning.

"then it would actually be more probable that we would be at the center than elsewhere in our universe."

No, that conclusion doesn't follow from your contrived premise in any way, shape or form.

"Your statement about probabilities is meaningless unless you’re willing to claim that science knows all there is to know about how the universe works."

Non-sequitur conclusion again. And hypocrisy, given that you were just making bullshit claims about probabilities.

"Again, it’s only a low-probability model if you arrogantly assume that you have a complete understanding of the universe."

Straw man. And hypocrisy again given your obvious and rather desperate attempts to want to be at the centre of the Universe.

"What your’e implicitly saying is that it’s more sensible and scientific to choose the relativistic geocentric model over the absolute Geocentric model."

Even if there were a relativistic geocentric model, it would still be bollocks.

"But it’s not sensible or scientific to choose the model that is part of a theory that has at least a 50% probability of ultimately being shown to be incorrect (quantum mechanics and relativity can’t both be correct)."

Repeating this claim again huh? It had no bearing on anything when you first mentioned it, and it still has no relevance now. So NGC 6205 pointed out that “Geocentrism is simply not sensible or probable, given the big picture, which includes all our knowledge of physics, astronomy and cosmology.”

And you hilariously respond with: "That’s not what science says. That’s what people who assume they have an accurate big picture say."

OH go on then, I'll briefly humour you and your failure to understand the information you've been supplied with: What does science say then? Don't forget to name the scientists concerned and reference papers supporting your claims.

"The laws of physics dictate that a system of bodies orbits the center of mass of the entire system. Which is what our sun is doing: it’s orbiting the center of mass of the entire universe."

Wrong again. You're really not very good at this are you?

"And Earth happens to be located at that center."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!! You think Earth is "the centre of mass of the entire Universe". You don't have a fucking clue about physics and now would be a good time for you to stop pretending that you do.

"That's why Earth is the only place in the universe where you'll see a star appearing to orbit one of its smaller planets."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! There you go with your special pleading again. Instead of engaging in this tedious, fallacious bullshit that you seem to be so very keen on, why don't you provide a paper showing conclusively that Earth is the centre of MASS of the entire Universe and that the Sun orbits it.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“False. Measurements validating GR are not confined to Earth.”

Allowing for the sake of argument that you are correct, GR is an incomplete theory, and GR is not the sum total of Einstein’s relativity. The part I object to is that all reference frames are physically equivalent. That is the heart of Einstein's theory, and it has yet to be tested by the scientific method.

“No. And you have no a priori reason to assume a "geocentric reference frame". You're just being intellectually dishonest.”

Actually I do have an a priori reason. We are currently in a geocentric reference frame, so I’m assuming that frame because I am an observer within that frame. Since relativity puts forth the hypothesis that all reference frames are physically equivalent, relativity must test that hypothesis by gathering evidence from within other reference frames, not just a geocentric frame. I’m not being intellectually dishonest, you are.

“False dichotomy. Both are extensively tested and work within the domains to which they apply. Germ Theory is incompatible with GR. The inability to reconcile them into a single relativistic germ theory doesn't mean that one is wrong. Again you're being intellectually dishonest.”

Then you tell me what a physicist such as Brian Greene means when he writes, “As they are currently formulated, general relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right” (The Elegant Universe, pg 3). Saying that one of them cannot be right does not mean that one of them is wrong? What is this, Orwellian doublethink?

What does Stephen Hawking mean when he writes, “We have general relativity, the partial theory of gravity…” The Theory of Everything, pg 112). Tell me by what screwed-up logic an incomplete theory of gravity does not equal an incorrect theory of gravity? If a theory is only half right, then it is wrong, period. Almost right doesn’t count.

But now I suppose I’m going to be ridiculed as a quote miner for citing authoritative figures to back up what I said. Or let me guess. I’m taking them out of context.

And I'm not being intellectually dishonest. You are.

“By definition? Regardless, you appear to utterly fail to understand the concept of a light horizon, and the simple fact that any observer anywhere in the Universe will appear to be at its centre.”

The commenter to whom I was responding said that we were ‘by definition’ (his words) at the center of our observable universe. I was merely agreeing with his definition. As for the alleged appearance that I utterly fail to understand the concept of a light horizon, appearances can be deceiving. As for the alleged ‘simple fact’ that any observer anywhere in the universe will appear to be at its center, you’re assuming that there is something beyond our own light horizon. In fact, you are making a hypothesis. Prove that an observer at our light horizon will see something beyond our horizon. Obey the rules of science. Go ye forth and test your hypothesis. Refusing to consider the possibility that there might be nothing beyond our light horizon does not make it true that there is something beyond our light horizon.

“Argument from ignorance and special pleading. But thanks for demonstrating that you don't understand light and that you appear to think that the Universe is a fixed size bubble with an edge. That's just priceless.”

How do I know that you understand light enough to tell me that I don't understand light? Anyway, I never said that the universe is a fixed-size bubble. Are you denying that our observable universe has an edge? That’s just priceless. We can only see about 14 billion light years out, and can see nothing past that. Seems like an edge to me. If you don’t call that an edge, what DO you call it? Our light horizon, perhaps? A rose by any other name… Prove that there is something beyond our horizon. Or the edge of the universe, as I call it.

“Because the universe is neither a circle nor a sphere with an edge.”

Special pleading.

“And sinc eyou have no reason to assume the former [that Earth is at the center of the entire universe], everything you said after this was completely pointless.”

I do have reason to assume Earth is at the center of the entire universe: we have no empirical, scientific evidence of a universe beyond the edge of our observable universe (or beyond our light horizon, as you apparently insist that it be called). It is YOU who have no valid reason other than special pleading to assume that there IS something beyond our light horizon.

“Assuming your conclusion as your premise. Bad idea.”

Actually, no. The premise is that Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the entire universe. The conclusion based upon the premise is what I said: ‘It’s the only planet in the universe that would feel the combined gravitational force of all the mass in the universe, equally from all directions.’ Which is what I said in response to a non-geocentric statement that Earth is subject to the same forces as all the other matter in the universe.

“And so now you want to co-opt science when it suits you. How disingenuous.”

I’m not co-opting science. I’ve been using science all along in my argument. I mentioned the concept of the Goldilocks Zone as a possible explanation of why we find ourselves at the center of the universe.

“Also, the strip to which you refer isn't as narrow as you would like to imply to sate your apparent need to feel special.”

Actually it is fairly narrow compared to the overall size of the solar system. You should look it up sometime. As for my apparent need to feel special, I have no such need. Why do you presume to know what my needs are?

“Again, you have no reason to even suppose that as a premise other than your desire to engage in circular reasoning.”

Why do you keep presuming to know what my needs and desires are? Can you tell me what my thoughts are as well? Quick, what am I thinking right now? Anyway, I guess my alleged desire is sort of like your desire to engage in similar circular reasoning when you insist without any evidence that every point in the universe is at the center of its own observable universe.

“No, that conclusion doesn't follow from your contrived premise in any way, shape or form.”

The allegedly contrived premise to which you refer is that Earth is in a unique Goldilocks Zone at the center of the universe. The conclusion is that it would therefore actually be more probable that human life would evolve at the center than elsewhere in our universe.

If you believe my conclusion doesn't follow from my premise, then you must also believe the premise that Earth is in a Goldilocks Zone in our solar system doesn’t lead to the conclusion that it’s therefore more probable that human life would evolve on Earth than elsewhere in the solar system.

“Even if there were a relativistic geocentric model, it would still be bollocks.”

IF there were? There has to be one. ALL relativists are implicitly geocentrists, they're just geocentrists who don't believe that the geocentric frame is a preferred or unique frame as do the other sort of geocentrists. So if you think relativity's geocentric model is bollocks (can I use that word too, or have you trademarked it?), then you are an anti-relativist. Welcome to the club.

“Repeating this claim again huh? It had no bearing on anything when you first mentioned it, and it still has no relevance now.”

It had every bit of relevance when I first mentioned it, and it still does now. The choice on offer is between a relativistic geocentric reference frame and an absolute Geocentric reference frame. Relativity is pseudoscience, therefore the only real choice is the absolute Geocentric reference frame.

“OH go on then, I'll briefly humour you and your failure to understand the information you've been supplied with: What does science say then?”

What does science say about what? The big picture to which NGC 6205 referred? Science doesn’t say anything. It’s merely a tool that people use (or misuse) to test their hypotheses, and then make statements regarding their interpretation of the test results. My view of the big picture given to us by science and reason says that we’re absolutely at rest at the center of the entire universe. You apparently hold the view that the big picture given to us by science and reason says that we’re  only at the center of our own observable universe, and likewise every other observer is at the center of his/her/its own observable universe. One of us has an incorrect view of the big picture. Can you guess which one of us I believe it is? I’ll bet you can, since you seem to be intimately familiar with my needs and desires.

“Wrong again.”

What’s wrong? That the laws of physics dictate that a system of bodies orbits the center of mass of the entire system, or that the sun is orbiting the center of mass of the entire universe? If you think the former is wrong, then you really should study physics a bit more, and if it’s the latter, then I call special pleadings on you.

“You're really not very good at this are you?”

Actually, I’m actually VERY good at this.

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!! You think Earth is "the centre of mass of the entire Universe". You don't have a fucking clue about physics and now would be a good time for you to stop pretending that you do.”

Did I say that I thought Earth was the center of mass of the entire universe? Show me where I said I thought Earth was the center of mass of the entire universe.

“HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! There you go with your special pleading again. Instead of engaging in this tedious, fallacious bullshit that you seem to be so very keen on, why don't you provide a paper showing conclusively that Earth is the centre of MASS of the entire Universe and that the Sun orbits it.”

I don’t need to provide a paper showing conclusively that Earth is the center of MASS of the entire universe, because I never made that claim. Re-read my comments and then show me where I made that claim.

[no further response as yet that I am aware of]