Featured Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

Let's see, Dr. Aardsma said: According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false.

But you say it has been proven that one is true and the other false.

Though he probably doesn't have your degree of firsthand experience in exhaustively testing and independently verifying the postulates of Relativity, I'm going to trust Aardsma's summary of the conclusions.

 

He's just saying that the speed of light in reality is not always c.

Though it's a non sequitur, you're applying this to the truth value of the heliocentric model. I'm not disputing heliocentrism. It is said that both models are equally justifiable, not just geometrically, but dynamically. I've posted enough supporting evidence. To say that one is obviously true and the other false makes no scientific sense.

Heliocentricity is behind the times. The accepted cosmology is Relativity, which renders the debate meaningless.

 

Thank you.

No, the others here are arguing that heliocentricity is true and had been scientifically proven.

 

Assuming an earth in motion is a valid model according to Relativity. So is assuming an earth at rest. Both models can be equally justified.

That's the reality according to Relativity.

 

And here we go again.

The reality is in fact. Heliocentricity is not proven, and you have no knowledge or experience or question on the matter that the physicists haven't hammered on. It's what they're saying. Not me. I've established that it's what they're saying. Disbelieve the scientists if you like, but that the physicists say what they say is not my fault, and I'm not the one to be taken to task on it.

Heliocentricity is the preferred model for a host of reasons, most of which are philosophical, but there is no technological or medical advance or knowledge that depends on it, not even the knowledge of God.

 

No, Einstein, Hawking and a host of others say it is not proven.

 

Let's ask Albert.

Hey, Albert, is the sun the center of the solar system?

Albert: Off kourse eet ees zee zenter off zee solar seestem.

Doesn't that prove that the earth is moving around the sun?

Albert: Naht att all. Vee kahn assume zat zee erse ees aht rest, and steel explain zee observations, soh zeer ees noe trus too any off zee coordinate seestems, beekoss zeer ees noe absolute space by vitch vee may establish vezzer ort naht a body ees truly aht rest.

Eet ees all in zee eye off zee beholder.

 

Let me put it to you this way, and for a more detailed description, find a pdf version of The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking.

Your notions about modern science, and about what a scientist says when he speaks of natural or physical laws are nothing like what they really mean. When a scientist speaks of a law, he doesn't speak of something that is consistent in every condition and frame of reference. Relativity does not apply to Quantum Mechanics and vice versa, and even the two theories of Relativity have some problems jiving. When a scientist speaks of reality, he is only speaking of the vantage points of observers. When he says that the speed of light will always be c, and in the general theory, c can be practically any value depending on the frame of reference of the observer, and no observer can know whether or not what he is observing is the truth of the thing itself, or if his view is being affected by something he cannot yet discern.

To the modern scientist, truth cannot be known. Observations of the cosmos can only be explained with model-dependent theories, and every model by necessity begins with an arbitrary assumption.

Relativity does not say that assuming an earth-centered model requires the stars to whirl about faster than what we think is the speed of light, only that it will appear to be so from the vantage point of the earth, and the laws can be tweaked to explain it.

So whether or not the earth moves depends upon ones preference. Relativity is the only cosmology that can justify the heliocentric model based on what we've learned thus far, but it is not the only model that it can equally justify.

 

Then you should have known the answer to your own question. Cautious