A Final Geocentric Wrap-Up

Here is the last email that I sent on the subject, and will most likely be the last thing I am going to say about it. One note before pasting it here: Saying that the sun goes around the Earth is no different than driving a car and saying that the car is still, but the Earth is spinning under you. Read further and see why some hold:

Dear Listmates,

There have been some nice points on this topic, and while an earlier post of mine somehow fell into that “black hole" we call the Internet, I thought it would be good to summarize the 5 items rather than just re-send it.

1)      RELATIVITY: The example given by Einstein was a train moving quickly and a person dropping a ball, and the person on the train sees it as falling straight down while the person outside, looking through the glass walls sees it curving. However, this comparison falls apart for the geocentrist because, like this example, we have two data collecting and reporting satellites, one approaching the edge of the SOLAR system (not GEO-system), and one that is nearly so, which, like the observer outside of the train, can validate that the view of an earth-centered SOLAR system is not what is going on in reality, even though it is a comfortable view for some non-scientists.

2)      TIME: Since the earth is still, to the geocentrist, and slanted at 23.5 degrees, according to science, the Earth will have no seasons to speak of (about every 6 hours it will change, which is the same as none at all) as the sun whizzes around the Earth every 24 hours.

3)      SPACE: If you hold the Earth as the center, and have the moon, Venus, Mercury, and the sun (pick whatever order suits you) whizzing around the Earth, the distance of the Earth from Mars will increase by about 800%, taking about 6 years to fly there from Earth, rather than the current REAL time of less than a year. I have seen very complicated models trying to set up the GEO system, but they all fail on keeping the current verified measured distances (confirmed by external crafts hurtling through space – the external observer with advanced measuring equipment).

4)      TRUE: I asked a week ago if someone could draw a picture of a GEO System (versus a Solar System) where time and space will match externally confirmed reality. If one can be made where the sun and all of the planets are the same size and the same distances from one another with the same orbiting speeds that have been externally verified, I am willing to accept that there is a plausibility (within religion and philosophy) that the GEO-System model has some sort of merit. Until then, I withhold that.

5)      FALSE: Some have said that just because something is unlikely, it doesn't make it untrue. It is more correct to say that, with theories, they express the greatest plausibility and possibility of truth until proven wrong, and then, they are not true at all. There are many examples of failed theories. With NON-theories, (such as Young-Earth-Creationism, Flat Earth, and Geocentrism, to name a few), they are considered false unless there is evidence to justify their consideration, and if they fail peer review, they fail and are false, not simply “less true”.

The difference between religion and science is that, with religion, you can interpret something in unique ways, and while it may not be accurate, it will have validity in its application. This is true in Midrash, for example, and that is a good thing.

In science, while there are areas where one speaks of plausibility, some things are more or less plausible, but there is no such thing as more or less true, just more or less plausible. For once it is disproved, it is false, in science (and that process may take a long time), while in religion, it remains. So it is incorrect to say that Geo-Centrism is “not AS true as heliocentrism”, but, rather, it a false concept of the universe that we long discarded once we invented the telescope that can be used on this world, as well as ones that hurtle among the vast reaches of our SOLAR system.

I don’t think that I can add anything else to the topic. I updated my blog to reflect this. I leave the rest to you.

UPDATE

The list manager responded with a few points. I will not post the long reply, but it comes down to this.

1) Quotes a paper that he never read. The paper is how you can use, in science, a Geocentric model for satellites that are close to the earth rather than a standard one, providing that adjustments are made. No argument there, but we were discussing planets that are not near the Earth, which the authors were not proposing.

2) He claims that the sun wobbles as it travels around the Earth, so there will still be seasons.

3) This answer was short, so I repeat it in full:

"And again there is a second motion of Mars, which matches the sun's (above) and a third order one around the sun."

Which made no sense in reference to how Mars would be incorrectly measured at a six year difference.

4) In requesting him to draw a map of his solar system that would have matching values of our existing reality, he wrote:

"But the distances and time won't be exactly the same -- relativity includes lorentz contractions of both."

 Which is saying that our measurement will only appear to lengthen, while ignoring that if a ship leaves the Earth and arrives on Mars 10 months later, which model is that reality representing?

5) Skipped it.

I had to finally quit that list. I can only deal with Flat Earthers, Young Earth Creationists, and Geocentrists for only so long. Life is too short to try to convince the deluded.