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.
Relativity is pseudo-science, and I don’t care how many
“reputable” and intelligent scientists support it, scientific and empirical
truth is not decided by how many people believe in a theory.
Nope wrote:
You know, you're saying all this nonsense right under a
video that is part of a 12-episode series talking about why the geocentric view
is inconsistent with our observations and therefore utterly useless for
humanity. In every video there is at least 3 to 10 points why your model is
unviable , many of them using simple math and basic scientific theories like
gravity etc.
You know, the thing is, you can come up with as many frames
as you want to describe the universe with the same amount of arrogance you
display, but no matter how much you think reality depends on what science you
"accept", at the end of the day it's always the practical usability
that decides wich model is more plausible. If a model has efficient predicting
capabilites, we use that and ignore the ones that hold no practical value to us
or flat-out contradict our observations. We launch satelites into space and
maintain them on a daily basis, we send probes to other planets, we predict the
orbit of millions of celestial bodies, we look into the past of our universe...
None of these things would be possible with the use of the geocentric model.
It's the same reason why there's a scientific concensus
regarding general relativity: not because most scientist just happened to agree
on it because they felt like it, but because it's a useful model with
predictive powers. Your own GPS depends on that very theory.
So if you're done playing the victim of the "big
conspiracy", please start addressing these videos point by point and
refute them using evidence. Not this "well, my reference frame should be
as valid as yours and relativitiy is pseudo-scientific anyway" crap,
because that's nothing but whining. SHOW IT! Cheers.
Scott Reeves wrote:
"You know, you're saying all this nonsense right under
a video that is part of a 12-episode series talking about why the geocentric
view is inconsistent with our observations and therefore utterly useless for
humanity."
You're kidding. I did not realize that. And absolutely nothing
I said was nonsense. I stand by every word of it.
"In every video there is at least 3 to 10 points why
your model is inviable, many of them using simple math and basic scientific
theories like gravity etc."
So what you're saying is that in each video there are at
least 3 to 10 points explaining why relativity is an inviable theory. And
anyway, the Geocentric model which CHL attacks, in his first video at least, is
an obsolete Geocentric model that no modern Geocentrist endorses, except
perhaps for Fernieboy100, which makes him the perfect straw man for CHL .
"If a model has efficient predicting capabilites, we
use that and ignore the ones that hold no practical value to us or flat-out
contradict our observations."
Unfortunately for relativity, the predictions it allegedly
makes are predictions for what you would expect to see from within a geocentric
reference frame, which is precisely the frame from which we make those
observations. This is why relativists, to strictly adhere to the scientific
method, must perform those same observations from a cosmologically significant
distance from Earth, and in a statistically significant number of reference
frames, and replicate the results they obtained on Earth, from within the
geocentric reference frame. To date, this has not been done, therefore
relativity has not yet passed through the scientific method.
"We launch satelites into space and maintain them on a
daily basis, we send probes to other planets, we predict the orbit of millions
of celestial bodies, we look into the past of our universe... None of these
things would be possible with the use of the geocentric model."
Yes, they would be possible with the geocentric model. They
have to be possible with the geocentric model, or relativity is invalid. As for
looking into the past of our universe: how would this in particular not be
possible from an absolute Geocentric reference frame? Show me a Geocentrist who
denies that light takes time to travel from distant parts of the universe,
leaving aside any arguments as to the actual size of the universe?
"It's the same reason why there's a scientific
concensus regarding general relativity: not because most scientist just
happened to agree on it because they felt like it, but because it's a useful
model with predictive powers."
I'll simply copy and paste an earlier answer: Unfortunately
for relativity, the predictions it allegedly makes are predictions for what you
would expect to see from within a geocentric reference frame, which is
precisely the frame from which we make those observations. This is why
relativists, to strictly adhere to the scientific method, must perform those
same observations from a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, and in
a statistically significant number of reference frames, and replicate the
results they obtained on Earth, from within the geocentric reference frame. To
date, this has not been done, therefore relativity has not yet passed through
the scientific method.
"So if you're done playing the victim of the 'big
conspiracy'"
I didn't mention any big conspiracy, and I didn't imply any
big conspiracy. And I would in no way view myself as a victim if there were any
such big conspiracy.
"please start addressing these videos point by point
and refute them using evidence."
Why would I want to address point by point the videos of
someone who is attempting to disprove relativity, whether or not CHL realizes
that is what he is actually attempting? More power to him. I just recommend
that he be a little less obnoxious in his attempts, and that he should attack a
CURRENT Geocentric model, one propounded by most modern Geocentrists, at least
in his first video.
"Not this 'well, my reference frame should be as valid
as yours and relativitiy is pseudo-scientific anyway' crap, because that's
nothing but whining. SHOW IT! Cheers."
I can only assume you mean I'm 'whining' that 'my' absolute
Geocentric frame should be as valid as your relativistic geocentric frame. My
absolute frame is actually valid and your relativistic one isn't, so I'm not
whining. I'm just spreading truth.
Anyway, if that assumption is correct, then yes, the choice
available to us is between an absolute Geocentric reference frame and a
relativistic geocentric reference frame.
To date, NO observation has been put forward that cannot be
accommodated by an absolute Geocentric reference frame. You can cite any sort
of evidence you'd like: GPS, Focault's pendulum, geosynchronous satellites,
geostationary satellites, parallax, aberration, particle accelerators,
Hafele-Keating, cosmic ray muons - anything you'd like, and none of it
contradictory to absolute Geocentrism. And according to relativists who
actually understand relativity, all the observations support a relativistic
geocentric reference frame as well. As I said earlier, you should be
admonishing me for advocating an absolute Geocentric frame, not trying to
disprove any sort of geocentrism whatsoever.
You have to find a way to choose between the two possible
geocentric frames. Since the relativistic geocentric reference frame is
dependent upon the truth of the Copernican principle, which is actually a
hypothesis that has no empirical support and is basically a twin of the
principle of relativity, then the choice is clear: relativity has not been
properly tested, yet is presented to the public as scientific fact, making
relativity a pseudo-science. Therefore, the choice is between absolute
Geocentrism or a pseudo-science. Which does a true scientist choose?
Nope wrote:
OK, so to cut this short, let's start this over again with
you describing this so-called "absolute Geocentric model" of yours.
And please, don't just refer me to your video. Maybe it's just that I'm an
idiot, but I couldn't make any sense of it. I'm more of the reading type.
Scott Reeves wrote:
I don't have any video that I recall which describes the
modern geocentric reference frame in detail. [NOTE: at the time I wrote this response, that statement was true. But I have since made such a video, prompted by this very sequence of comments]. Maybe the best way to describe it
would be "The relativistic geocentric reference frame, except the absolute
version of it." And there's really no difference between the two, other
than the assertion that the absolute Geocentric reference frame
is...well...absolute as opposed to relative. And it has a capital-G to
distinguish it, following the convention of Phil Plaitt, the so-called Bad
Astronomer. It looks a lot like the one CHL attempts to debunk in video 10,
which he dubs Brahe 2.0. You'll note that he(?) doesn't claim that the model
doesn't work or can't be modified to work, only that it fails a shave with Occam's
Razor and is "Bollocks!" which doesn't speak to whether or not the
model is viable. Occam's Razor isn't a physical law that governs the universe.
If it violates Occam's razor, I don't care.
Not being sarcastic, but which video of mine did you watch
and couldn't understand (all of them is not a helpful answer) because I've got
like 150 or so on YouTube, and if you're going to start asking questions about
one, I'll need to know which one you're talking about.
[No further response as yet from Nope]
No comments:
Post a Comment