Einstein
"I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment."
In spite of the quote-mined quotes, were any of them geocentrists? Should that not tell you something?
In these quotes, they are restating the relativity principle, that the laws of physics are the same to any inertial frame observer. They're saying there is no preferred inherent frame of reference in relativity. That is quite the opposite from support for the geocentrist claim that there is a preferred inherent frame of reference.
Also the Einstein quote does not end with a period. The full quote is
While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to the conclusion that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.
So a key part of the quote is omitted. Also, he refers to "optical experiment" rather than "any experiment", and given the context I think he means Michelson-type experiments.
Since you like quotes, here's one from Gerardus Bouw (1994)
I would not be a geocentrist if it were not for the Scriptures
He is not a geocentrist because he thinks it the most reasonable explanation of the observational data. He knows observation of the world as it is does not support geocentrism. (I also do not concede the Scriptures teach geocentrism.)
Even according to Newtonian physics, heliocentrism is incorrect. In his system, the planets would all revolve around the barycenter of the solar system, and not the sun per se, and occasionally this barycenter is outside of the sun. Then of course the original notion of heliocentrism where the sun was fixed in place is wrong, as scientists allegedly hold that the entire solar system is moving through space, and then the entire galaxy, etc. According to Newton, the only fixed point in the entire universe would be at the very barycenter of the universe. No one can prove that is not the earth.
I've responded to your hypothesis before. Does it make any predictions? Why yes, if the earth were at the barycenter, then the mass of near objects like the sun would need to be offset by masses in the other direction, and since we don't see any nearby, they would be a long way away. Do we have any observational support for these? No. Worse, the sun moves in an annual cycle (per geocentrists) so the counter-mass would need to move in a corresponding annual cycle, but when we look at the stars we don't find
anything that moves in an annual cycle opposite the sun.
For an analogy, most people who see a basketball player spin a basketball on his finger say he's spinning the basketball. The geocentrist effectively says no, the basketball is at rest and the player and the court are spinning around the basketball, and when the player touches the basketball, the player and surrounding court change their motion. (This is not a strawman. We do observe a change of rotation of the earth due to earthquakes. For the geocentrist, the universe changes its rate of rotation due to the earthquake.)
Theoretically possible, I suppose, but rather counter-intuitive as it goes against how we usually think of causality. Perhaps that's a philosophical reason for choosing one system over another.
... but I want to respect cassini's thread and not derail it.
Aren't nearly all of cassini's threads ultimately about geocentrism?
Same things holds of other issues. I can have discussions with some R&R folks, but not with others, because they're openly hostile and are clearly not open to honestly debating the issues.
And yet, when I tell you facts, you are hostile.
Topic: Fr Paul Robinson SSPX. v Young Earth Creationists (Read 29195 times)