Geocentrism: What's It Hurt?

Huk said:
No. I’m saying it’s a theory, so as a theory, people are free to question and entertain it. You, sir, are what was known as a sophist in Ancient Greece. Plato, famously, battled sophistry in his writings in an attempt to seek the truth. However, sophists, much like you, ultimately don’t care about the truth, they only care about the argument for the sake of arguing…or perhaps, amusement.
Click to expand...
K.

You are under no obligation to engage me. But when it comes to answering the oft employed objections to Moses, you will find a no better ally than me.
 
Ransom said:
An irrelevant distinction. We've sent unmanned machines to other planets. The laws of physics don't change because there's a dude on board.
Click to expand...
The laws of physics can justify a geocentric model. How does the sending of probes lend truth value to another model?

Also, how has 'space travel' relieved any suffering of mankind, or enhanced his life?
 
Ekklesian said:
The laws of physics can justify a geocentric model. How does the sending of probes lend truth value to another model?

Also, how has 'space travel' relieved any suffering of mankind, or enhanced his life?
Click to expand...
A totally fruitless and endless supply of stupidity from ekkk! UGH!
 
Huk said:
And apparently he’s going to continue to proselytize daily about the geocentric model until we’ve all become converts. (If he succeeds, I’m not quite sure how our daily lives will change…oh, that’s right, our lives won’t change.)
Click to expand...
When he types his input into these forums all I can see or hear is...."EEEEEyyyyyyy AAAAAwwwwwww!!!!!"
 
Ekklesian said:
The laws of physics can justify a geocentric model. How does the sending of probes lend truth value to another model?
Click to expand...
If the engineers who designed a mission assume a heliocentric model in which Mars orbits the sun, rather than the Earth, and the probe successfully reaches Mars, that obviously validates their assumption.
 
Ekklesian said:
Is there one technological or medical advance that would be hindered by it?
Click to expand...
By the way, if this is Ekklesian's best argument in favour of a geocentric solar system, let's note that it's a fallacy: argumentum ad consequentiaim, the argument from consequences. It's not an appeal to the truth of the matter; it's an appeal to emotion. It completely sidesteps whether geocentrism is true in itself, and appeals to the consequences of believing in it, i.e. what harm does it do?

I guess that if you don't think it's harmful to yourself to reveal that you're a fool in public that promotes ignorant pseudoscience, knock yourself out. I've got a gently used copy of Dianetics you might be interested in, while we're at it.
 
Ransom said:
By the way, if this is Ekklesian's best argument in favour of a geocentric solar system, let's note that it's a fallacy: argumentum ad consequentiaim, the argument from consequences. It's not an appeal to the truth of the matter; it's an appeal to emotion. It completely sidesteps whether geocentrism is true in itself, and appeals to the consequences of believing in it, i.e. what harm does it do?
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not my best argument by far. The best arguments are made by the theoretical physicists themselves. I've cited more than one.

Ransom said:
I guess that if you don't think it's harmful to yourself to reveal that you're a fool in public that promotes ignorant pseudoscience, knock yourself out. I've got a gently used copy of Dianetics you might be interested in, while we're at it.
Click to expand...

Actually, my question leads to the real issue of cosmology...and that is philosophy. All the arguments for or against a certain model of the cosmos are philosophical.

People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.​
​
Profile: George F. R. Ellis," Scientific American, October 1995, Vol. 273, No.4, p. 55.​
​

Thinking Globally, Acting Universally on JSTOR

W. Wayt Gibbs, Thinking Globally, Acting Universally, Scientific American, Vol. 273, No. 4 (OCTOBER 1995), pp. 50, 54-55
www.jstor.org www.jstor.org
​
​
 
Ransom said:
If the engineers who designed a mission assume a heliocentric model in which Mars orbits the sun, rather than the Earth, and the probe successfully reaches Mars, that obviously validates their assumption.
Click to expand...
There are a range of models that can be justified. That doesn't mean that there is truth value to one above another. You're merely appealing to your notions of what they think, not what they really think.
 
Ekklesian said:
There are a range of models that can be justified. That doesn't mean that there is truth value to one above another. You're merely appealing to your notions of what they think, not what they really think.
Click to expand...
So when NASA struck an asteroid yesterday with a spaceship, were they assuming the spaceship orbited the earth, or the sun?
 
Ransom said:
So when NASA struck an asteroid yesterday with a spaceship, were they assuming the spaceship orbited the earth, or the sun?
Click to expand...
You still don't understand what a geocentric model is. It's not a model in which everything orbits the earth. There were some geocentric models of the solar system, like Tycho Brahe's, where earth is the center, the planets orbit the sun, but the sun orbits the earth.

A modern geocentric model is one in which the earth occupies the center of mass of a spherical and rotating universe and the sun is carried around the earth by the gravity of the stars and centrifugal forces. (And yes, that breaks the speed limit of the Special Theory, but not of the General Theory, where "c" can have a value several orders of magnitude above the limit in the Special Theory.) But the planets are orbiting the sun. Relativity can justify this model.

And according to the eminent astrophysicist quoted above, one can only reject it on philosophical grounds.
 
Ekklesian said:
You still don't understand what a geocentric model is. It's not a model in which everything orbits the earth. There were some geocentric models of the solar system, like Tycho Brahe's, where earth is the center, the planets orbit the sun, but the sun orbits the earth.

A modern geocentric model is one in which the earth occupies the center of mass of a spherical and rotating universe and the sun is carried around the earth by the gravity of the stars and centrifugal forces. (And yes, that breaks the speed limit of the Special Theory, but not of the General Theory, where "c" can have a value several orders of magnitude above the limit in the Special Theory.) But the planets are orbiting the sun. Relativity can justify this model.

And according to the eminent astrophysicist quoted above, one can only reject it on philosophical grounds.
Click to expand...
More useless info from the "Braying Ass!" Yeeee Hawww!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top