No.

The planets are all round but the sun is flat.

If you look hard enough at the planets, you can see the strings holding them up. Otherwise they'd just float away.

Hence String Theory...

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

There are no credible arguments for, just antiquated mythological arguments against based on the religious writings of antiquity.

Earth is not the center of the universe, nor is our sun. We do perceive it as the center because of our false perceptions. 

Quantum mechanics and the big bang actually put all points collectively as the center, which is a far more realistic and amazing view than superstitious mythology out of antiquity.

From OUR point of view we are, but if we could move freely through out the universe that other point would become our point of view.

The "center" of life and the universe as argued by the religious is nonsense.

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

Yes, though you won't accept any, but however...

1. Geocentric means earth centred. Somehow, you don't know this. I have no idea why that might be.

2. "Geocentric earth" therefore means "earth centered earth" a tautology. Earth can't be anything but earth centered. Wanna go for barycentres? We can do that, but you haven't a foggiest what those are, so I hold little hope on that score.

3. Geocentrism requires either one  of two options. Stars can exceed the speed of light, which we know is false, OR, stars are all within 0.16 light years of earth, which we also know is false.

Now, I know what your response will be, but I recommend you avoid that intractable marshland.

'splains why Christians have such primitive views of the world, don't it.

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

The Earth certainly can be a center of the universe.  “Center” is after all a elastic concept.  You can certainly name the earth the center by definition.   You can construct coordinate systems where the earth is always at the origin.   But if we are to use descernible attribute as oppose to arbitrary definition as basis for calling the earth the center, then we run into the problem of being unable to identify any meaningful actual attribute of the earth or of the universe that clearly makes the earth distinctly and uniquely the center  of the universe.  In other words earth is unable to fit any meaningful attribute based definition of the center better than an infinite array of other candidates.

---

(July 15, 2018 at 6:23 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

Yes, though you won't accept any, but however...

1. Geocentric means earth centred. Somehow, you don't know this. I have no idea why that might be.

2. "Geocentric earth" therefore means "earth centered earth" a tautology. Earth can't be anything but earth centered. Wanna go for barycentres? We can do that, but you haven't a foggiest what those are, so I hold little hope on that score.

3. Geocentrism requires either one  of two options. Stars can exceed the speed of light, which we know is false, OR, stars are all within 0.16 light years of earth, which we also know is false.

Now, I know what your response will be, but I recommend you avoid that intractable marshland.

1. Yes.

2. That’s not the only possible way to interpret the phrase “geocentric earth”.  It could also mean “earth in a geocentric frame of reference”, or “earth in a geocentric universe”.

3. It does not require that.  The observable universe can be exactly what it is, and yet the earth is at it’s exact geometric center.  Observations do not preclude it, but they offer no evidence whatsoever for it.   The system of understanding the universe that does not give the earth a uniquely central position explains everything we’ve observed more cleanly and less contrivedly.

(July 15, 2018 at 6:37 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

The Earth certainly can be a center of the universe.  “Center” is after all a elastic concept.  You can certainly name the earth the center by definition.   You can construct coordinate systems where the earth is always at the origin.   But if we are to use descernible attribute as oppose to arbitrary definition as basis for calling the earth the center, then we run into the problem of being unable to identify any meaningful actual attribute of the earth or of the universe that clearly makes the earth distinctly and uniquely the center  of the universe.  In other words earth is unable to fit any meaningful attribute based definition of the center better than an infinite array of other candidates.

---

(July 15, 2018 at 6:23 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Yes, though you won't accept any, but however...

1. Geocentric means earth centred. Somehow, you don't know this. I have no idea why that might be.

2. "Geocentric earth" therefore means "earth centered earth" a tautology. Earth can't be anything but earth centered. Wanna go for barycentres? We can do that, but you haven't a foggiest what those are, so I hold little hope on that score.

3. Geocentrism requires either one  of two options. Stars can exceed the speed of light, which we know is false, OR, stars are all within 0.16 light years of earth, which we also know is false.

Now, I know what your response will be, but I recommend you avoid that intractable marshland.

1. Yes.

2. That’s not the only possible way to interpret the phrase “geocentric earth”.  It could also mean “earth in a geocentric frame of reference”, or “earth in a geocentric universe”.

3. It does not require that.  The observable universe can be exactly what it is, and yet the earth is at it’s exact geometric center.  Observations do not preclude it, but they offer no evidence whatsoever for it.   The system of understanding the universe that does not give the earth a uniquely central position explains everything we’ve observed more cleanly and less contrivedly.

1. great.
2. If you think that "geocentric" means anything other than "earth centred" feel free to rewrite the OED. While you are at it, go ahead and redefine "atheist" to mean "unicorn".
3. You cannot define Earth as the centre of the universe without stars being impossibly close or travelling in excess of c. There is no middle ground on that. Unless you wish to appeal to magic, in which case all bets are off.

(July 15, 2018 at 5:26 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

There are no credible arguments for, just antiquated mythological arguments against based on the religious writings of antiquity.

Earth is not the center of the universe, nor is our sun. We do perceive it as the center because of our false perceptions. 

Quantum mechanics and the big bang actually put all points collectively as the center, which is a far more realistic and amazing view than superstitious mythology out of antiquity.

From OUR point of view we are, but if we could move freely through out the universe that other point would become our point of view.

The "center" of life and the universe as argued by the religious is nonsense.

Obviously, I was NOT making a "religious" argument. Because "religion" is for morons! If you say, "Yes, religion is for morons but, your still a moron"! Well, then I am a moron only and not a "religious" moron! Geez people: can you all agree that I am a moron! And not, a "religious" moron? There is a huge difference! Right???


Please 'splain, to us all, what type of moron you are! 


I crack myself up!

---

(July 15, 2018 at 5:26 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(July 14, 2018 at 4:31 pm)Haipule Wrote: New to me but looks interesting. Any arguments for or, against?

There are no credible arguments for, just antiquated mythological arguments against based on the religious writings of antiquity.

Earth is not the center of the universe, nor is our sun. We do perceive it as the center because of our false perceptions. 

Quantum mechanics and the big bang actually put all points collectively as the center, which is a far more realistic and amazing view than superstitious mythology out of antiquity.

From OUR point of view we are, but if we could move freely through out the universe that other point would become our point of view.

The "center" of life and the universe as argued by the religious is nonsense.

"Quantum Mechanics?" Are you an "Atom Cultist?" If so, then you are very religious! "Particle theory": atoms, electrons, neutrons, photons, phonons, etc, etc, etc? Show me a photograph! Oh, that's right, you can't! Please don't show me the calculus! Really? Does Mother Nature have an abacus, or a calculator? Is there any, at all, math in nature?

It's the field(Force: all of nature--many things) is in interplay. The force in motion. Inertia and acceleration. Centripetal convergence. Centrifugal divergence. Sound, magnetism, electricity. No fucking atoms! No fucking particles! What, did you have to go to college to learn how to be completely blind to nature? Waves rule and particles drool? 

Do you get that that same type of idiocy has taught countless atomotards in school. Do you understand that seminary professors teach religitardism?

I never went to college? Why? Because I had no interest in tardisms!

I have studied countless sciences from my own vantage point beyond anything taught in school. And that includes theology! I can't show you my results(except theology) because of discloser agreements.

There are two thing that are antithetical and in disagreement: theology and science and both are completely stupid with gurus!

Quote:"Particle theory": atoms, electrons, neutrons, photons, phonons, etc, etc, etc? Show me a photograph! Oh, that's right, you can't!

Ask and ye shall receive, oh Asshat:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science...ngle-atom/

Quote:I have studied countless sciences from my own vantage point beyond anything taught in school. And that includes theology!

Theology isn't a science.

Boru

"Discloser" agreements don't forbid you from naming those "sciences".

(July 18, 2018 at 4:09 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:"Particle theory": atoms, electrons, neutrons, photons, phonons, etc, etc, etc? Show me a photograph! Oh, that's right, you can't!

Ask and ye shall receive, oh Asshat:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science...ngle-atom/

Quote:I have studied countless sciences from my own vantage point beyond anything taught in school. And that includes theology!

Theology isn't a science.

Boru

That  picture of the atoms is amazing