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.

Scott Reeves wrote:

"It's demonstrable by the laws of physics, they are frame independed which means all points are equal."

Which laws of physics, specifically?

"It doesn't, it might be a conclusion but it's not a dependence."

It is a dependence, because if the observable universe is all that there is to the universe, which obviously there can be no proof that there IS more to it given the inherently unobservable nature of that alleged more, and we're at the center of the observable, then we're absolutely, non-relatively at the center. Therefore relativity at least, and probably the Big Bang, depend upon there being more to the universe than what can be observed.

"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."

Prove that the Earth moves around the sun. All you can prove is that there is relative motion between the Earth and the sun. That is ALL you can prove.

Scott Reeves wrote: 

Forgot this part: 

"It doesn't, cite a single peer reviewed article from a reputable journal that says we are the center."

I’m not looking through peer-reviewed journals, wading through their tech-talk to find an instance where they say we’re at the center of the observable universe. I can, however, throw all sorts of websites at you with quotes from physics professors and such saying that we are at the center of the observable universe. I’m not going to waste my time doing that, though, because I’ve got all that in one of my videos here on YouTube.

And anyway, how can you claim in one breath that every point in the universe will be seen as the center, and then deny in the next that science acknowledges that we’re at the center of the observable universe? What is that, some sort of retard double-think to try to confuse the issue?

Emperor Zelos wrote:

"I’m not looking through peer-reviewed journals, wading through their tech-talk to find an instance where they say we’re at the center of the observable universe."

That's what you gotta do because webshites are worthless. 

"I can, however, throw all sorts of websites at you with quotes from physics professors and such saying that we are at the center of the observable universe."

Not relevant unless the entire context of the quote is supplied.

"And anyway, how can you claim in one breath that every point in the universe will be seen as the center, and then deny in the next that science acknowledges that we’re at the center of the observable universe? What is that, some sort of retard double-think to try to confuse the issue?"

First of you have not given any evidence that science says we are at the center, which I know is not the case because scientists know that all the laws of physics are frame invariant. This means no frame is prefered and special and all give equal predictions and as such tehre cannot be any centre without every point being the centre and if all points are the centre, do we really have a centre? No, it's just a product of the frame then. 

Scott Reeves wrote: 

“First of you have not given any evidence that science says we are at the center, which I know is not the case because scientists know that all the laws of physics are frame invariant.”

You yourself gave the evidence in an earlier comment.  I quote you from one of your comments on this very video: “+Godrules Idiot, they know exacly how to deal with the data because....guess what? EVERY FUCKING POINT IN THE UNIVERSE WILL SEE ITSELF AS BEING THE CENTER!?”

So unless you don’t really know what you’re talking about and thus everything you say to me is complete shite, we are at the center of the observable universe, and you have acknowledged it. The observer in the phrase "the observable universe" is us. When scientists talk about the observable universe, they're not talking about the observable universe as observed by Spock over on Vulcan.

That we are at the center of the observable universe is such a basic tenet of modern science that I don’t NEED to slog through a bunch of peer-reviewed, “scientific” journals to search for a “credible” statement in support of my claim regarding modern science’s position on the subject, any more than you have to do the same in support of your previous “EVERY FUCKING POINT IN THE UNIVERSE WILL SEE ITSELF AS BEING THE CENTER!?” comment.

What YOU need to do is slog through the scientific journals in search of empirical PROOF for your contention that EVERY point in the universe, not just ours, will see itself as the center. Guess what? THERE IS NO EMPRICAL PROOF OF THAT! Because the way you empirically prove it is to travel a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, perform your observations, and get the same results that you got on Earth. Unless you are aware of some secret space program that has done just that, then the claim that every point will see itself as the center of its own observable universe, which is a paraphrase of the Copernican principle, is an untested hypothesis.

“…which I know is not the case because scientists know that all the laws of physics are frame invariant. This means no frame is prefered and special and all give equal predictions and as such tehre cannot be any centre without every point being the centre and if all points are the centre, do we really have a centre? No, it's just a product of the frame then.?”

So you WERE talking about the principle of relativity earlier. The relativity principle is actually a hypothesis that says basically, as you put it, “…no frame is pefered [sic] and special and all give equal predictions…”

It’s a HYPOTHESIS, closely tied to the Copernican principle (actually, another hypothesis), and it is exactly this hypothesis that makes relativity pseudo-science, because the hypothesis implicitly requires the existence of a larger universe beyond our observable universe. As I said, if the (our) observable universe is all that there is to the universe, AND we are at the center of it (“EVERY FUCKING POINT IN THE UNIVERSE WILL SEE ITSELF AS BEING THE CENTER!?”), then both the principle of relativity (read hypothesis) and the Copernican principle (read hypothesis) will fail. Thus, relativity and its adherents MUST prove that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe, which, because it is implicitly unobservable and thus beyond the scope of rational scientific inquiry, is an impossible task for relativity.

So your statement “…no frame is prefered and special and all give equal predictions and as such tehre cannot be any centre without every point being the centre…” is an as-yet-untested hypothesis, a hypothesis that depends upon the existence of something that cannot be observed, making it a hypothesis that cannot be empirically tested. And since relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact, relativity is PSEUDO-SCIENCE.

So we’re left with two options: 1) We are absolutely, non-relativistically at the center of the observable universe, and the observable universe is all that there is, or 2) We are relativistically at the center of the observable universe, but that’s okay, because “EVERY FUCKING POINT IN THE UNIVERSE WILL SEE ITSELF AS BEING THE CENTER!?”

Option 1 is scientifically sound and is supported by ALL empirical evidence. Option 2 is scientifically unsound as it depends upon the existence of something that is as real as fairies and unicorns and the flying spaghetti monster.

Which option should a true scientist choose?

EmperorZelos has no clothes.

EmperorZelos wrote:

"You yourself gave the evidence in an earlier comment. I quote you from one of your comments on this very video: “+Godrules Idiot, they know exacly how to deal with the data because....guess what? EVERY FUCKING POINT IN THE UNIVERSE WILL SEE ITSELF AS BEING THE CENTER!?”

If every point is the center than no point is the center you imbecile.

"because the hypothesis implicitly requires the existence of a larger universe beyond our observable universe."

It doesn't.

"So your statement “…no frame is prefered and special and all give equal predictions and as such tehre cannot be any centre without every point being the centre…” is an as-yet-untested hypothesis, a hypothesis that depends upon the existence of something that cannot be observed, making it a hypothesis that cannot be empirically tested."

It can and has been tested Scientists go with evidence you imbecile and geocentrism is not it. We know that earth is moving through space, our galaxy is moving and all

Scott Reeves wrote:

"If every point is the center than no point is the center you imbecile."

That's a mighty big if with no empirical evidence behind it. Every point is not the center, that's the point. There's only one point that is the center, and that point is us.

“It doesn't."

Does too.

"It [principle of relativity] can and has been tested"

How has it been tested? Particle accelerators? GPS? Astronomical observations? Hafele-Keating? Cosmic ray muons? Those aren't tests of the principle of relativity. They're merely the gathering of observations from within an Earth-based reference frame, observations which say that strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth, which doesn't contradict absolute, non-relativistic Geocentrism. Now, to properly test the principle following the scientific method, the same observations must be made, and the same results obtained, at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. To date, that has not been done. "

“Scientists go with evidence you imbecile and geocentrism is not it." 

You're correct. Scientists do go with evidence. Which is why relativists and anti-geocentrists do not qualify as scientists.

"We know that earth is moving through space, our galaxy is moving and all"

How do you know this? Cite me any empirical evidence that says it's Earth that is definitely moving, rather than just relative motion between Earth and something else. You cannot cite me any such evidence, because there IS none! I, however, can cite evidence that Earth is motionless: interferomter experiments.

I quote Albert Einstein: "For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest..."

"You fool!" he said with a flourish of his cape, "It is not I who am the imbecile! It is you!"

EmperorZelos wrote:

"That's a mighty big if with no empirical evidence behind it. Every point is not the center, that's the point. There's only one point that is the center, and that point is us."

It isn't because all laws of physics have been tested and they are frame independed.

"They're merely the gathering of observations from within an Earth-based reference frame, observations which say that strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth, which doesn't contradict absolute, non-relativistic Geocentrism."

Geocentrism is dead since long ago so drop that already. We have gathered data in space, from other planets, satelites, as earth moves around the sun, sun through the galaxy and more.

"You're correct. Scientists do go with evidence. Which is why relativists and anti-geocentrists do not qualify as scientists."

Realitivity is confirmed to all levels on non-quantum levels and geocentrism is long since dead as it matches no fucking data.

"How do you know this? Cite me any empirical evidence that says it's Earth that is definitely moving, rather than just relative motion between Earth and something else"

Diurnal aberation, annual aberation, paralax, the dipole in microwave background radiation just to mention a small fraction of all evidence.

"You cannot cite me any such evidence, because there IS none! I, however, can cite evidence that Earth is motionless: interferomter experiments."

Yet I did you imbecile.

Scott Reeves wrote:

"It isn't because all laws of physics have been tested and they are frame independed [sic]."

The speed of light at least, from the Geocentric viewpoint, is not frame independent. So ALL the laws are frame independent only if relativity is true. Relativity still has not been tested as required by the scientific method. Such testing cannot have been tested as required by the scientific method until such tests are replicated at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, since non-relativistic Geocentrism is true if relativity is false.

"Geocentrism is dead since long ago so drop that already. We have gathered data in space, from other planets, satelites [sic], as earth moves around the sun, sun through the galaxy and more."

I will not drop Geocentrism, ever. I will chase it round the Moons of Nibia and round the Antares Maelstrom and round Perdition's flames before I give it up! Unless of course you're just saying you want to end our little back and forth now, which is okay with me. Anyway, Geocentrism is only "dead since long ago" by a consensus of pseudo-scientists, not by any empirical evidence against it. We may have gathered data in space, etc, as you say, but it wasn't gathered at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, so it says nothing against Geocentrism. And the data gathered from other planets relates only to the planet in question, such as surface temperature, soil and atmospheric composition, etc. Have these planetary probes been making detailed astronomical observations regarding distant parts of the universe? Not that I've been hearing. And even if they have, they are still not being performed at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, which is a requirement to properly test both relativity and the Copernican principle.

"Realitivity [sic] is confirmed to all levels on non-quantum levels and geocentrism is long since dead as it matches no fucking data."

No it's not and yes it does.

"Diurnal aberation [sic], annual aberation [sic], paralax [sic], the dipole in microwave background radiation just to mention a small fraction of all evidence."

All of which are easily explainable within a Geocentric universe if you care to look into the matter.

Here's a bit from Stephen Hawking. He's pretty smart, even though he believes in a pseudo-science, so you should listen to him: "...for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest. Despite its role in philosophical debates over the nature of our universe, the real advantage of the Copernican system is simply that the equations of motion are much simpler in the frame of reference in which the sun is at rest." - Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42

All the experiments you cited - diurnal aberration, annual aberration, etc - are all observations of the heavens, and if Stephen Hawking says they can be explained by assuming the Earth is at rest, I believe him. Plus, I've looked into each of those on my own, and Geocentrism can definitely explain them. Geocentrism can even explain geostationary and geosynchronous satellites, just in case you're going to bring those up.

You do realize that if there are any sort of observations showing Earth is definitely in motion, then relativity is an invalid theory, don't you? In which case, non-relativistic Geocentrism is your only alternative. So by arguing that there are observations that definitely prove the Earth is in motion, you are shooting yourself in the foot. If the Earth is definitely in motion, you're once again stuck having to explain why we can't detect Earth's motion using interferometers, which will lead you once again to the relativity of all motion, which will once again lead to your alleged detection of the Earth's definite motion, which will again destroy relativity...

"Yet I did you imbecile."

No, you didn't, you imbecile (can't we talk like mature people and stop the name-calling? I get it already; you think I'm an imbecile. Chill out, dude.). All you cited me are observations which show the relative motion between Earth and the universe, not any observations which show that the Earth is definitely the object in motion.

MikeVizioz wrote:

"Geocentrism is only ‘dead since long ago’ by a consensus of pseudo-scientists"

...You just called every single scientist in history a pseudo-scientist.

Scott Reeves wrote:

That's all right. If you're wrong, you're wrong, no matter who you are. But I'm sure there are a few scientists out there in history and the present who weren't covered by my sweeping statement.

But maybe that was a bit too harsh. I'll be gentler and modify it to "Geocentrism is only 'dead since long ago' by a consensus of scientists who were fooled by a pseudo-science."

EmperorZelos wrote:

"Relativity still has not been tested as required by the scientific method."

This is completely false, it has been tasted over and over and over again and it has succeeded at every point. It is tasted everyday by cellphones.

"Anyway, Geocentrism is only "dead since long ago" by a consensus of pseudo-scientists, not by any empirical evidence against it."

Yeah no, it's dead by scientists because all evidence ever gathered goes against it.

"All of which are easily explainable within a Geocentric universe if you care to look into the matter."

Easily explainable? Look up cool hard logics video and see what explination is required for al of those to work in a geocentric universe, the model is assinine.

"You do realize that if there are any sort of observations showing Earth is definitely in motion, then relativity is an invalid theory, don't you?"

This is flatly wrong because it doesn't matter in relativity you imbecile.

Scott Reeves wrote:

“This is completely false, it has been tasted [sic] over and over and over again and it has succeeded at every point. It is tasted [sic] everyday by cellphones."

Maybe it's been tasted, as you say, but it hasn't been tested. Once you have gone a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, repeated the observations made on Earth, then and only then can you claim that relativity has been tested. Until you've done that, all that can be said at this point is that relativity has been tasted (whatever that means) and relativists have merely been gathering data from within an Earth-based reference frame, data that you all can use for comparison when you finally get in your little spaceships and zoom off to the distant stars and replicate your experiments there.

"Yeah no, it's dead by scientists because all evidence ever gathered goes against it."

Yeah, no. The only "evidence" against it is a philosophical principle. Here's another quote from The Grand Design, by Stephen Hawking: ""At first sight, all this evidence that the universe appears the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something distinctive about our place in the universe...There is, however, an alternative explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann's second assumption [the cosmological principle]...But today we believe Friedmann's assumption for almost the opposite reason, a kind of modesty: we feel it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us but not around other points in the universe!"

Modern scientists believe we're not at the center of the universe not based upon any empirical evidence, but upon a desire for modesty.

"Easily explainable? Look up cool hard logics [sic] video and see what explination [sic] is required for al [sic] of those to work in a geocentric universe, the model is assinine [sic]."

Between CoolHardLogic and Geocentrism, the only thing asinine is CoolHardLogic, and there's certainly no HardLogic in his obnoxious arguments against geocentrism. Guy's a jerkwad. Ad hominem attacks (that's the sort of attack I just did in the previous sentence, but I'm sure you know that, you imbecile);) against a well-meaning but misguided geocentrist who advocates an obsolete geocentric model to which no knowledgeable modern geocentrist adheres. Fernieboy100 is a straw man that CHL props up to demonstrate CHL's own misunderstanding of both modern geocentrism and relativity itself. Why don't you look up Robert Sungenis's excellent rebuttal of CHL's first video? (Yes, I know, Sungenis is a religious nut and an imbecile and you won't waste your time, right?)

"This is flatly wrong because it doesn't matter in relativity you imbecile."

Relativity itself doesn't matter because it's pseudo-science. But anyway, once again you're demonstrating your lack of understanding of relativity. If you can point to a reference frame and say, "This frame is definitely, absolutely in motion," then relativity is invalid, because you have just identified a special reference frame, unequal to other reference frames. When there is relative motion between two frames, relativity requires that each reference frame be allowed to consider itself at rest and the other reference frame in motion. If you say, "That frame is most definitely in absolute motion," then that frame cannot consider itself to be at rest and the other frame in motion. If you can point to such a frame, then you have just identified a frame that is not equal to other frames, thereby invalidating relativity. Do you really not know this, or are we just miscommunicating somewhere? You ARE familiar with the concepts of absolute motion and absolute rest, aren't you?

EmperorZelos wrote:

Are you really so weak in your position that you have to latch onto a typo? Really? You need to both grow up then and learn some basic science.

Scott Reeves wrote:

"Are you really so weak in your position that you have to latch onto a typo? Really?"

Not really. I only did it because I noticed elsewhere in these comments that you were very nastily cursing someone out for their atrocious spelling. Meanwhile, your responses to me have been littered with a ridiculous amount of misspelling.

"You need to both grow up then and learn some basic science."

I'm plenty grown up. If you read back through our interactions, you'll notice that you were the first to start calling me names. I ignored it at first, but lately it's getting ridiculous, so I've been returning the favor a bit. But you're right. I shouldn't be stooping to your level, so I revert to my previous position of ignoring your juvenile attacks against me personally. And I've learned plenty of basic science, and urge you to do the same. Or at least reassess whether you've actually learned what you think you've learned.

EmperorZelos wrote:

It's only name calling if the terms are not descriptive and for you, they are very accurate. You've learned no science if you advocate geocentrism, something that is 500 years out of date.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Well, then, I know what you are, but what am I infinity.

These are The Undeniable Facts (aka the CoolHardLogic-al facts), whether you choose to accept them or not:

1) A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. Could be Earth that is in motion, could be the other guy. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity.

2) We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this.

3) Absolute Geocentrists say that our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe is all that there is to the universe. There is nothing beyond our observable universe.

4) If our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe.

5) According to standard Big Bang cosmology, anything beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe will be forever unobservable to us due to the expansion of space.

6) Things that are unobservable do not exist as far as science is concerned. Therefore anything beyond our observable universe does not exist as far as science is concerned. How could it, since the ability to observe something is a requirement of the scientific method?

7) If 4) is correct then relativity is false, because Earth is a preferred, special reference frame, defining an absolute rest frame.

8) The only way 4) can be false is if there is a larger universe beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe.

9) Therefore, both relativity and the Copernican principle require the existence of a universe larger than our observable universe, i.e. both depend upon something that is beyond the scope of the scientific method and rational scientific inquiry.

10) Mainstream science claims that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe. They MUST claim this, because both relativity and the Copernican principle require it (see 9)) Google “the observable universe vs. the entire universe.”

11) Relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact, yet, due to the requirement in 9), relativity is an unscientific theory.

12) Therefore, relativity is pseudo-science.

13) The only options available to us are absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism.

14) Relativity is a pseudo-science, therefore the only option available to strict adherents to science is absolute Geocentrism.

Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the universe as far as science is concerned. Relativity is a pseudo-science and anyone who adheres to it is a kook. Case closed, class dismissed.

EmperorZelos wrote:

"A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. Could be Earth that is in motion, could be the other guy. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity."

We can say everything is in motion because everything is in motion in some frame of reference. The thing is also there are certain things that shows that it's in motion such as acceleration, while the direction of acceleration and quantity differs depending on the frame of reference it can always be measured in any frame and show that it's moving and changing.

"We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this"

It's the same with every point when you look out from it, we can observe it's not stationary though.

"f our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe."

Really? Cite the peer reviewed work of it. All measurements have shown that earth is not at rest. The rest is irrelevant

Scott Reeves wrote:

"We can say everything is in motion because everything is in motion in some frame of reference."

Incorrect. To an observer in any reference frame, that reference frame is not moving. It's the all the other reference frames that are moving. To say that you've got all the bases covered because you can always find a reference frame where any object under consideration is in motion, is to assume the viewpoint of an ultimate observer in an ultimate reference frame. Which = absolute reference frame.

"The thing is also there are certain things that shows that it's in motion such as acceleration, while the direction of acceleration and quantity differs depending on the frame of reference it can always be measured in any frame and show that it's moving and changing."

Incorrect. An observer in an allegedly accelerating reference frame can claim that it's the other reference frames that are accelerating. A car on the highway can say that he is motionless and the ground is racing past him. When he puts on his brake, a momentary gravitational field is generated ahead of the car which decelerates the entire universe. It sounds ridiculous, but that is exactly the position of general relativity. The car is always motionless from the viewpoint of its observer. It's the entire universe that accelerates, moves at a constant velocity for a time, and then decelerates.

"It's the same with every point when you look out from it, we can observe it's not stationary though."

Again, you have no proof that it's the same with every point. That's the Copernican Principle, and there's no empirical evidence that the Copernican principle is true. Again I quote Stephen Hawking from The Grand Design, pg 62: "We have no scientific evidence for or against that second assumption." The second assumption to which he refers is Alexander Friedmann's assumption, which, in Hawking's words, is "...the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too." Sound even remotely like what you've been saying? As Hawking says, there's no empirical evidence for it. And Hawking is wrong that there's no evidence AGAINST it. The evidence against it is that it requires the existence of a larger universe beyond the observable universe, which is something that cannot be verified because the alleged larger universe is unobservable, and so is beyond the scope of rational scientific inquiry. So there's no evidence for the Copernican principle, and there's evidence against it. Goodbye, Copernican principle, and, through guilt by association, goodbye relativity.

"All measurements have shown that earth is not at rest."

Not ALL measurements have shown that Earth is not at rest. If ALL measurements showed that Earth is not at rest, then those measurements are showing that Earth is in absolute motion. Absolute motion is as deadly to relativity as absolute rest. All that relativity can speak to is relative motion between reference frames. An observer on Earth can say that Earth is motionless and the sun is moving. An observer on Mars can say that Mars is at rest, Earth is moving around the sun, and both are moving around the Mars. Depending on which observer you ask, Earth is either in motion, or it is stationary. That is relativity. So if you say that ALL measurements have shown that Earth is moving, you're assuming the viewpoint of a non-Earth-centered observer. And that's true. All of HIS measurements have shown that Earth is not at rest. But If you ask an observer on Earth, all his measurements will show that Earth is not moving. In relativity, you cannot say whether Earth is moving or not. You can only ask different observers about Earth's state of motion or lack of it, and all of them are correct, at least according to relativity. I don't think you are quite understanding that about relativity.

[No response from EmperorZelos as yet to the above]

Scott Reeves later wrote (commenting on EmperorZelos’s comment to another user) :

"Imma call you stupid if you keep holding onto them when I try to educate you."

Could just mean that the teacher is stupid.

EmperorZelos wrote:

Could be, that is known to occure in life but more often than not that is not the case.

In this instance for example when the teacher says the earth is round and moving through space, the teacher is 100% absolutely correct and opposition to say otherwise is stupidity.

Scott Reeves wrote:

You've got the round part right, but regarding the moving through space part, you're still merely a student who obviously has not yet received his diploma in Relativity.

EmperorZelos wrote:

How cute! Except we know we move through space because relativity, as I bet you mean special, only applied to linear motion and not accelerating frames of references

Scott Reeves wrote:

“How cute! Except we know we move through space because relativity, as I bet you mean special, only applied to linear motion and not accelerating frames of references”

Only an observer in a reference frame relative to which Earth is moving “knows” that Earth is moving. You’re correct that special relativity doesn’t apply to accelerating frames of reference. But general relativity provides no answers regarding the question of the motion of the Earth, because Earth is only an accelerating reference frame if you assume the viewpoint of an observer outside the geocentric reference frame. For a geocentric observer, the geocentric reference frame is an inertial reference frame.

For a relativist, there is no objective fact as to whether the Earth is moving. Not even in general relativity. Earth’s motion and rotation, or lack of motion and rotation, depend upon which observer you ask, and every observer you ask is correct. So according to relativity, if someone in a geocentric reference frame says Earth is neither orbiting the sun nor rotating, then he/she is just as correct as an observer in a non-geocentric reference frame who says that the Earth IS orbiting the sun and rotating.

The following is a response that I had anticipated having to make to what I said in the immediately preceding, but which I haven't actually posted, since as yet there has been no further response. Also, this is only a partial piece of a much larger response I had planned:

Fine. For the purposes of this discussion, I’ll retract what I said about a geocentric frame being inertial, and allow that technically a geocentric reference frame is non-inertial due solely to the presence of gravity. But this doesn’t change the fact that general relativity provides no answers as to whether the Earth is actually orbiting the sun and rotating. In such a geocentric frame, Earth is stationary and non-rotating even as it experiences a gravitational field. So Earth is non-inertial due to solely gravity, while the rest of the universe is non-inertial due to its rotation around the stationary Earth. Likewise when you choose the sun as the center, or our galaxy as the center, or the local cluster as the center, etc. In each case (when you're choosing planets, stars, or galaxies as the center, at least, rather than ships moving at constant velocity far from any significant mass), you're comparing the subject reference frame vs. everything else as a reference frame, so in most cases, you're comparing two non-inertial reference frames.