geocentrism is a proven science, heliocentrism is a false occultic philosophy.

And at the same time you admit radio contact (actually GPS) gets lost. So you are using data given by the same people (GPS, Dept of Defense, USGS) to claim what they they wanted you to think anyways. Circular reasoning.

Sorry, meant radar.

Prove it, quote them.



No, you can't.



Like the one below?

:geocenseas2:

Assuming a circular orbit:

In spring and autumn the Earth - Sun distance is 149.6 million kilometers. The resulting angular diameter (the apparent diameter in the sky) is 32'00".

As the sun spirals up/down, the Earth - Sun distance increases constantly until it is 163 million kilometers in summer/winter solstices, resulting in an angular diameter of 29'22".

This is not observed. Observed is only a variation of the suns angular diameter from 31'31" to 32'33".

If you think, I'm wrong, prove it.

.

Erm could somebody explain to me why some of you are writing about a totally different topic then the OP ? I mean is it so hard to understand that this thread is about debating Heliocentrism vs Geocentrism and has NOTHING to do with the flat earth theory .?!

Or is that to hard to grasp for some ? Want to debate flat earth, then make your own damn topic and stop derailing this quiet interesting conversation between geo and helio !

I said:

Don't try to put words in my mouth.

.

Even if you meant radar: learn the difference between radar and GPS.

.

OP was talking about it on the first page and I just continued it. He didn't seem to mind, and obliged in a civil discussion. I will stop though, my apologies.

I know the difference. You do not seem to understand that it is indeed GPS contact that is dropped over the oceans.

I don't see how anyone can ever say they know something 100% correctly. That makes me

Please elaborate on how you know the Earth is actually a sphere. How do you know how visible light travels and its reactions to various energies.

Why can't it curve away from the surface? Then you'd be looking at land/water, but you see sky, so the Earth would appear to curve.

What about where the horizon is above where a leveler says it should be?

I'm not suggesting anything in particular, I just haven't seen anything truly conclusive on any theory involving the geometry of Earth. So much contradiction combined with reasonable arguments from all the theories.

And one last thing, why does the International Date Line the way it is? First, it's not straight. Second, shouldn't the deviations in the line balance each other out? It's been a while since I've really put any thought into that, but a few years ago, it had me perplexed. My first theory, since they weren't of (or due to mapping a sphere) equal area. But...Africa is tiny on most maps...

So hoping to get others' opinions on some of this, if people could stop trying to throw off topics. "If."

Didn't catch the tangent either. I have a hard time seeing how they aren't very closely related topics anyways.

hydra youre a joke.

it doesn't matter if its the earth that's tilting or the motion of the sun that is tilting.
the systems are equal.

all the angles are there.

you are making a fool out of yourself.

Sun rays have direct effect only in certain places. Why all mountains in tropical area have snow caps? How would you explain weather of Afghanistan, when at day there's +30 and at night minus 15. In northern regions sun is not hot, it simply gives light.

Also scientists can't explain, why planet Mercury don't melt from heat. They proposed, that planet is made of some hard special elements, that sustain that heat.

I ask you again to eliminate any misunderstandings:


What applies to your system?

The Earth spins around its axis once every 24 hours and the sun orbits Earth once every 365 days.

or

The Earth is stationary (don't spin around its axis) and the sun orbits Earth once every 24 hours.

.

The Earth is stationary (don't spin around its axis) and the sun orbits Earth once every 24 hours.
+ the sun makes a yearly trip up and down to the tropics.

which results in a system spatially equal to a heliocentric model, the only difference being is that the fixed point is the earth and not the sun (or the center of gravity between the sun and the earth)
which means the math the physics and the ANGLES are the same!

what you are doing is basically inventing a problem that doesn't really exist.

I finally learned the importance of Mach's Principle.

It directly supports geocentrism.

This is why the fraud, Einstein, was catapulted into prominence, and is not allowed to be questioned to this very day.

You never hear about Mach, Sagnac, the Michelson-Gale experiments etc. because the zio-science establishment wants to force the Copernican system, and Special Relativity (a ridiculous joke), to be the ONLY possible system under which we live, to support the agenda of the atheists and evolutionists.

my ip flag says im from Israel, which means I am a jew.
I am jew who is against the concept of modern political Zionism
but there is no such thing a "zio" establishment.

I don't wish to make this thread about the history goals and future of modern political Zionism.
just felt I should point this out.


anyway... yes you are completely right.

You need to consider the concave model where the sun would go around the inside of earth once per 24hrs.

the concave model appeals to me greatly but I am not decided yet.

even in the concave model, besides the 24h circling of the inside of the earth, the sun also has a yearly path from the tropic of cancer to the tropic of Capricorn and back to the tropic of cancer - which makes the seasons.

One more question to eliminate misunderstandings:

The Earth axis points straight up (north) and down (south), the Equator is horizontal + the plane of the Suns and the other planets orbit is not inclined against Earth equator?

or

The Earth axis points straight up (north) and down (south), the Equator is horizontal + the plane of the Sun's and the other planets' orbit is inclined against Earth's equator by 23.4 degrees?



In conrast to many other posters, I don't have a problem with it.


(I'm a little busy atm, so it may take some time to respond.)


.

Geostationary satellites. Why don't they fall down? Because they're orbiting the earth at the same velocity that the earth is rotating.

The Earth axis points straight up (north) and down (south), the Equator is horizontal + the plane of the Sun's and the other planets' orbit is inclined against Earth's equator by 23.4 degrees?

this

nasa uses a geocentric model in all their space missions.

and if they don't, general relativity nullifies your argument because it doesn't matter if the earth is fixed or the sun is fixed.
same math same physics.

I was asking for an experiment showing the earth is moving.
not a dumb answer that "the earth must be moving because satelites work derp derp derp"

Sure, you can describe the orbit relative to the center of the earth, it's a standard convention to do so for an earth-orbiting satellite. I do so. That doesn't mean I think the earth is the center of the universe or that it isn't turning. Again, geostationary satellites. Why don't they fall down? Because they're orbiting the earth at the same velocity that the earth is rotating.

If you want to argue "relativity," (also, aren't you the OP who just shit on special relativity - if you shit all over that then you can't accept that which was derived from it, general relativity) then geocentrism is still wrong since there is no preferred reference frame in relativity. That means earth is not a preferred reference frame. It's also not an inertial reference frame, so in order to describe the math of the universe from a reference frame of the earth one must introduce quite large fictitious forces. The math works, but that does not mean the universe is literally rotating around the earth. Geostationary satellites themselves would have to be held suspended above the earth entirely by fictitious forces according to that excuse, so again, geostationary satellites prove the earth is turning. Thanks.

Last Edited by Astromut on 06/01/2015 01:57 PM

Interestingly, the GPS system works using Sagnac-type corrections (c+v or c-v), and is NOT based on the fraudulent "Special Relativity" of Einstein.

Hi Doug.
"Nevertheless, it remains a seminal tenet of anti-relativityism (for lack of a better term) that the trivial Sagnac effect somehow "disproves relativity". Those who espouse this view sometimes claim that the expressions "c+v" and "c-v" appearing in the derivation of the phase shift are prima facie proof that the speed of light is not c with respect to some inertial coordinate system. When it is pointed out that those quantities do not refer to the speed of light, but rather to the sum and difference of the speed of light and the speed of some other object, both with respect to a single inertial coordinate system, which can be as great as 2c according to special relativity, the anti-relativityists are undaunted, and merely proceed to construct progressively more convoluted and specious "objections". For example, they sometimes argue that each point on the perimeter of a rotating circular Sagnac device is always instantaneously at rest in some inertial coordinate system, and according to special relativity the speed of light is precisely c in all directions with respect to any inertial system of coordinates, so (they argue) the speed of light must be isotropic at every point around the entire circumference of the loop, and hence the light pulses must take an equal amount of time to traverse the loop in either direction. Needless to say, this "reasoning" is invalid, because the pulses of light are never (let alone always) at the same point in the loop at the same time during their respective trips around the loop in opposite directions. At any given instant the point of the loop where one pulse is located is necessarily accelerating with respect to the instantaneous inertial rest frame of the point on the loop where the other pulse is located (and vice versa). As noted above, it’s self-evident that since the speed of light is isotropic with respect to at least one particular frame of reference, and since every other frame is related to that frame by a transformation that explicitly preserves light speed, no inconsistency with the invariance of the speed of light can arise."
[link to www.mathpages.com]

We can actually tell that the Earth is spinning around it's axis and is not stationary in space, because it is not exactly spherical, it is a spheroid, slightly flattened at the poles.

This flattening of the sphere is because the spin causes a centripetal force. If you stand on the floor and start to spin, you'll notice your arms flying outwards because of this force. In the same way, the equatorial parts of the Earth are pulled outwards by the centripetal force, deforming what would otherwise be a perfect sphere due to gravity.

Which means you got it backwards - heliocentrism is proven science, geocentrism is false.

But hey, at least you're not a flat Earther!

not really proof it is spinning. could have just been spinning when it was formed??

wow so many words and apologetics to just to say that gps uses c+/-v

??

centrifugal force works both ways.
it can distort the earth's shape even if the earth is standing still but it is the AETHER and starfield that spins around the earth.

do you have any DIRECT EMEPRICAL PROOF TO SHOW THAT THE EARTH IS MOVING!??!

because we in the geocentric camp have a proof it is NOT moving.