Author Topic: Geocentrists, please explain this. (Read 2277 times)

Jehanne · « **Reply #10 on:** September 13, 2015, 05:59:49 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus

Stop these inane threads already. You are not qualified to comment on this subject due to crass ignorance of math and physics.

Have you taken the Lagrange challenge:

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/geocentrists-fail-the-lagrange-point-challenge/

chaz89 · « **Reply #11 on:** September 13, 2015, 08:11:38 AM »

What, NASA is never wrong? The science of the day will be obsolete when?

cassini · « **Reply #12 on:** September 13, 2015, 01:39:35 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: cassini
Quote from: Jehanne
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4643&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NASAJPL&utm_content=weekly20150702-4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second

You ask 'geocentrists' to explain what? In a geocentric scenario it is the rotation of the universe that brings about the time of a day. So if a day slows it is the universe that is slowing. God must be getting tired.

Did you read the article:

Quote
VLBI tracks these short- and long-term variations by using global networks of stations to observe astronomical objects called quasars. The quasars serve as reference points that are essentially motionless because they are located billions of light years from Earth. Because the observing stations are spread out across the globe, the signal from a quasar will take longer to reach some stations than others. Scientists can use the small differences in arrival time to determine detailed information about the exact positions of the observing stations, Earth's rotation rate, and our planet's orientation in space.

Solar time and sidereal time are different:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

A solar day (86,400.002 seconds) is longer than a sidereal day (86,164.1 seconds) and those values are changing at different rates.

yes Jehanne, I am aware that a star day is four minutes less than a solar day leading to precession of the equinoxes. This applies to both G and H systems.

Now you and others trying to debunk the G system bringing up all kinds of proofs of falsifications of geocentrism should really be competing with the relativity of science, begun by Mach and Einstein and taken up by thousands of physicists since then.

If you guys are correct and have actually made the break through you claim I suggest you submit your proofs to the world's scientific academies and you would all become famous. Imagine, proving Mach and Einstein wrong, what an achievement.

So why waste your time and talents on this forum and go show the world of modern science you can PROVE the H system is true after all.

Jehanne · « **Reply #13 on:** September 13, 2015, 04:33:41 PM »

Quote from: cassini

yes Jehanne, I am aware that a star day is four minutes less than a solar day leading to precession of the equinoxes. This applies to both G and H systems.

Now you and others trying to debunk the G system bringing up all kinds of proofs of falsifications of geocentrism should really be competing with the relativity of science, begun by Mach and Einstein and taken up by thousands of physicists since then.

If you guys are correct and have actually made the break through you claim I suggest you submit your proofs to the world's scientific academies and you would all become famous. Imagine, proving Mach and Einstein wrong, what an achievement.

So why waste your time and talents on this forum and go show the world of modern science you can PROVE the H system is true after all.

What evidence, if any, could persuade you that the Earth moves, once a day about its axis of rotation, and once a year around the Sun:

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/first-direct-measurement-of-earths-rotation/

cassini · « **Reply #14 on:** September 14, 2015, 03:25:06 PM »

Quote from: Jehanne

Quote from: cassini
yes Jehanne, I am aware that a star day is four minutes less than a solar day leading to precession of the equinoxes. This applies to both G and H systems.

Now you and others trying to debunk the G system bringing up all kinds of proofs of falsifications of geocentrism should really be competing with the relativity of science, begun by Mach and Einstein and taken up by thousands of physicists since then.

If you guys are correct and have actually made the break through you claim I suggest you submit your proofs to the world's scientific academies and you would all become famous. Imagine, proving Mach and Einstein wrong, what an achievement.

So why waste your time and talents on this forum and go show the world of modern science you can PROVE the H system is true after all.

What evidence, if any, could persuade you that the Earth moves, once a day about its axis of rotation, and once a year around the Sun:

http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar-system/earth/first-direct-measurement-of-earths-rotation/

There is no evidence for a heliocentric universe. All the evidence shows the earth does not move and is situated at the centre of the universe.

Evidence however is not proof when it comes to the order of the universe. I have seen many claims of proofs for H and for G, but all these can be explained in a H scenario or a G scenario.
One's choice is based on faith, H based on faith in human reasoning, and G is based on Biblical interpretation of the Fathers and that 1616 papal decree defining H as formal heresy.