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.
