Comment on Heliocentric theory is wrong (pt1) by Roy Nak.
Sorry for my English, it’s not my native language.
I’m not an expert so I’m not claiming to have any answers.
I think however the question asked by Geocentric theory believers are legitimate questions.
All my own senses tell me the earth is not moving at all, maybe I’m wrong.
As far as I know there are only mathematical equations that will tell you if the earth is moving.
Every experiment taken can also be explained with a Geocentric model according to the experts.
Quote from George F. R. Ellis
People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues.
“For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.”
Ellis has published a paper on this. “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.”
Quote from Sir Fred Hoyle
“We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only,and that such a difference has no physical significance…”Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is “right” and the Ptolemaic theory is “wrong” in any meaningful sense. The two theories…are physically equivalent to one another.”
Quote from Carl Baugh
“Again, once more for the record: it has been shown at least six different ways this century alone that the equations and physics used by NASA to launch satellites
are identical to the equations derived from a geocentric universe. Thus, if the space program is proof of anything, it proves geocentricity and disproves heliocentrism.
Quote from Paul Davies
“If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked!
[This] theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations”
These are smart people, so how come everyone keeps telling there is only one correct model?
Furthermore if I read about all the tests performed to end the conversation between both models I see results favoring the Geocentric model. (Michelson Morley experiment, and many more)
The answer to explain these results are based on a mathematical equation that can never be observed in the real world.
“Length contraction was postulated by George FitzGerald (1889) and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz (1892) to explain the negative outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment and to rescue the hypothesis of the stationary aether”
I’m no mathematical genius, I’m also no a fool:)
I feel the same about the latest theories regarding the universe, a multiverse??
To explain all the known different constants in the universe we need a multiverse??
The answer to explain the multiverse is also mathematical equations that can never be observed in the real world. I thinks this sort of science is philosophical science, there is nothing wrong with that. However the same scientist that study this multiverse theory are claiming that philosophy is dead. There is no need for philosophy, science is the answer they claim. (Stephan Hawking, Lawrence krauss)
Stephan Hawking and Lawrence krauss both say the universe created itself from nothing?
What do they mean by nothing?
When I think of nothing, nothing means nothing. (null, zero)
Yet they claim that if you have the law of gravity (this is not nothing) you can create a universe from nothing??
As far as I know laws/rules don’t create anything, if so I would use these rules to create a lot of money:)
Personally I think that if maybe something looks designed it simply means it is designed
I think de moderator(s) of this forum are doing a great job questioning the heliocentric model.
I also have one question, maybe someone already asked this?
The earth and the atmosphere are both spinning at the same rate (according to the heliocentric model) with high speeds at the equator and lesser speeds towards the poles.
Where does the space shuttle reenters earth’s atmosphere and is the space shuttle following the spin of the earth? If not wouldn’t it be impossible to reenter the earth due to the fact that the atmosphere would hit the shuttle with the strength of a tornado? This due to the fact the atmosphere is supposed to be spinning at the same rate as the solid ground on earth.