All Big Issues
The Instigator
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

# Geocentricism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0

Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
 Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point Started: 9/9/2017 Category: Science Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period Viewed: 545 times Debate No: 103883
Debate Rounds (5)

 Pro My opponent thinks I'm an ignoramus who doesn't know the basic facts about cosmology so here is his chance to beat an ignoramus in a debate. If I'm really so ignorant and uneducated, he should make mincemeat of my arguments. Here we go!I believe Earth is spherical and motionless in the center of the universe (not orbiting anything, and not spinning). This is my model, and my main proof for Earth not moving is the 1887 Michelson & Morley experiment.To describe the experiment in the simplest way possible, they shot two light beams in different directions. One lightbeam was towards the direction they thought Earth was moving, and the other one was directly opposite the first light beam.If Earth was moving, the first lightbeam wouldn't be measured as fast as the second, because they'd be catching up to that beam as they rode on the moving Earth. It'd seem to be moving at the speed of light minus the speed of Earth.Since the second beam went the other way, and they'd be on Earth zooming away from it, it would seem to travel faster. Specifically, it'd seem to travel at the speed of light plus the speed of Earth.In reality, they measured practically no difference in the speed of the lightbeams. This proves Earth isn't moving.Thank you.Report this Argument Con My opponent forgot one teensy-weeny thingTHE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE SAME FOR ALL OBSERVERSHopefully I don't need to prove this since it's arguably the fundmental postulate for a majority of modern theories.Yes, it is true that the speed of light slows donw in certain mediums relative to others, but in the Michelson Morley expirement, the light is always travelling through air, making that point irrelevant. Why there arrive at the same time is a much more "fun" question and was brought into light by Einstein's theories of Relativity. In his theories, Einstein states that space and time are intertwined into a thing called "space-time". This essentially allows for the speed of light to remain constant for all observers. For example, say you are travelling at 0.99c, since D = RT --> T = D/R. Now imagine a light clock on this ship that looks a little something like this:Where the first light clock is what the observer's light clock would look like to the observer and the second one is what the spaceship's lightclock would look like to the observerObviously D increases since the light has to travel a much longer path; however, time is here to save the day. Time would seem to slow down in the spaceship relative to an observer, and vice versa since the spaceship would see the observer travelling at .99c in the opposite direction. It's obviously much mroe complicated than that, but I don't think my opponent will want to challenge Einstein. However, for the Michelson-Morley expirement, not only does time slow down but space can contract by the equationAsk any physict about this problem, and they will always tell you how the length contraction * the expected time delay = 1. Let me quickily clarify that if you walk 10 miles at v = 5 km/hr, that is not the same as walk on a conveyor belt for 5 miles that boosts your speed of 1 mph and then walking the other for 5 miles (slowing you down by 1 mph) for obvious reasons... (the second scenario is slower)You can calculate how much slower it would be via the equation 1/(1-(v/V)^2)where V is the velocity (5 mph)and v is the velocity of the conveyor belt (1 mph) Now let's look at a relavant example, let's say the Earth was rotating at .5c (obviously hypothetical).Using the above equation (plugging in c for V and the rotational velocity of the Earth for v) you get that the Michelson-Morley expirement should find that the time should be 1.1547 times slower for the second light beam. However, if you calculate for the Lorentz contraction, you get a value of 86.6% (meaning, that the length of the trip for the second light beam would be 86.6% of that of the first light beam's)Multiplying these two... gets you... wait for it... 1! (When you use exact values, I gave approximations obviously).As you can see, Einstein's theory of Relativity clearly predicts the Michelson-Morley expirement, even though it wasn't specifically meant for this expirement. It works perfectly fine for a rotating Earth and doesn't require a stationary Earth.Now... I want my opponent to present a model that can A.) Explain how the Sun would rotate around the Earth, even though the Sun's mass is hundreds of thousands times that of Earth's... unless my opponent would care to disprove both Einstein's and Newton's theories of gravity (which haven't failed a single test so far)B.) Explain the retrograde motion of Mars to be EXACTLY what we observeC.) Explain the phases of VenusD.) How day and night and the seasons workE.) The planet's moonsF.) How we are able to detect exoplanets via Doppler shift and Transit method if the star goes around the planet(s)Oh, and show how evidence for each part of the model... don't simply say "It's obvious", you're the one who called me Stupid :).EnjoyReport this Argument Pro "My opponent forgot one teensy-weeny thing"And my opponent forgot nobody cares about his boring maths that don't help anybody understand anything."THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS THE SAME FOR ALL OBSERVERS"Wrong! Special Relativity only deals with observers that are either: moving in a straight line at unchanging speed, or not moving at all Such frames will all percieve the speed of light to be the same. However, General Relativity deals with observers that are moving at changing speeds and directions and the speed of light is not the same for such observers.I don't even believe in either Relativity theory but you do, so your misunderstanding of it makes you look really bad. It's like you forgot all of General Relativity!"Einstein's theory of Relativity clearly predicts the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though it wasn't specifically meant for this expirement."Wrong! Einstein himself said Relativity was specifically meant for that experiment: "In my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment ... This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity." (1) "As you can see, Einstein's theory of Relativity clearly predicts the Michelson-Morley expirement"Wrong! The experiment inspired the theory. The theory didn't predict the experiment.The theory was created the explain the fact that they couldn't find the expected motion between Earth and the aether. My explanation is that Earth isn't moving. Your explanation, and Einstein's, is length contraction and time dilation, which is just crazy. My explanation is better because it's simpler, easier to understand, and actually makes logical sense. A.) Explain how the sun would rotate around the earth, even though the Sun's mass is hundreds of thousands times that of Earth's... unless my opponent would care to disprove both Einstein's and Newton's theories of gravity (which haven't failed a single test so far)First of all, they've both failed plenty of tests. Secondly, Einstein's General Relativity says the sun can revolve around Earth, no problem. Thirdly, Isaac Newton said geocentrism could be true in Proposition 43 in the Principia, even though he didn't publish it. (2) Here is what Newton said: "In order for the Earth to be at rest in the center of the system of the Sun, Planets, and Comets, there is required both universal gravity and another force in addition that acts on all bodies equally according to the quantity of matter in each of them and is equal and opposite to the accelerative gravity with which the Earth tends to the sun ... Since this force is equal and opposite to its gravity toward the Sun, the Earth can truly remain in equilibrium between these two forces and be at rest. And thus celestial bodies can move around the Earth at rest, as in the Tychonic system." This is the Tychonic system, the geocentric system I believe in:B.) Explain the retrograde motion of Mars to be EXACTLY what we observeMars orbits the sun while the sun revolves around Earth. Here's a really good animation to show you what I mean:www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ4yDZKHd5MC.) Explain the phases of VenusVenus orbits the sun while the sun revolves around Earth. Here's a really good picture to show you what I mean:D.) How day and night and seasons workDay and night are caused by the sun's 24 hour revolution around Earth. The seasons are caused by the center of the sun's daily revolution annually oscillating.E.) The planet's moonsThe planets' moons orbit their planets just like in heliocentrism.F.) How we are able to detect exoplanets via Doppler shift and Transit method if the star goes around the planet(s)I never said stars orbit planets."Oh, and show how evidence for each part of the model... don't simply say "It's obvious", you're the one who called me Stupid :)."I never called you stupid.How about you show evidence for heliocentrism or relativity or whatever you believe in, if you even know what you believe in?(1) A speech by Albert Einstein. Search Google for "How I created the Theory of Relativity", it's the first result.(2) Steven Weinberg, To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, page 251 Report this Argument Con "And my opponent forgot nobody cares about his boring maths that don't help anybody understand anything."I'm sorry, I know you don't like facts and math, but math is FUNDAMENTAL to all sciences (funny, because your model lacks that?).Further I use nothing but simple algebra and fundamental physics... it's worrying if you don't understand that."I don't even believe in either Relativity theory but you do, so your misunderstanding of it makes you look really bad. It's like you forgot all of General Relativity!"My opponent doesn't believe in either Relativity theory... just wow. Even though each of these theories has passed all tests with flying colors, I like how my opponent doesn't explain at all WHY he doesn't believe in it. Even though we percieve gravitational lensing, detect muons (their half-life is waaaaay to small to me detected, however, thanks to special relativity, they are able to reach the ground for detection http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...), even though these theories are backed up by mathematics more beatiful than any of us can imagine, etc.I would like to see one test (that isn't posted by some random blogger, I'm talking about certified scientists) that disproves either theory."In my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment ... This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity."I never said that this expirement didn't inspire him to construct his theories, I was saying how his theories weren't SPECIFICALLY meant for the expirement, they indirectly provided an explanation to the expirement. The primary focus of Special Relativity (which explains the expirement) is that space and time are intertwined into spacetime, it's only out of this that things such as the expirement are explained. There are other things that the theory proved if you aren't happy... for example:1.) Gravitational lensing (http://www.cfhtlens.org...):In short, "mass" bends spacetime. As light from a distant galaxy travels along its path along spacetime,the curvature from a closer galaxy causes this light to be "deflected". At correct angles, this results in the light curving into an entire circle called an Einstein ring. More commonly though, you get these banna shaped stretches of light (Strong gravitational lensing), however, the more common occurence is weak gravitational lensing which distorts the object by les than 1%, imperciptible to the human eye. It's not that hard to find evidence for this... literally just stare into a telescope and you will find gravitational lensing everywhere. 2.) Gravitational waves:Einstein's theory predicts gravitational waves --> gravitational waves were detected --> another point to Einstein.Not much to debate about there, you have to be delusional to deny that gravitational waves exist... just in case though, here are some sources backing me uphttps://www.ligo.caltech.edu...http://www.sciencemag.org...https://spaceplace.nasa.gov...3.) Perihelion precession of Mercury (http://physics.ucr.edu...):Due to the Sun's mass, the elliptical orbital path varies slightly annually as the picture clearly illustratesThe problem was that the perihelion precession of Mercury did not match the prediction by Newton's laws of gravity. Consequently, the calculated perihelion precession was 531.63″ ±0.69 (arcseconds/Julian Century) while the observed preihelion precession was 574.10″±0.6 (arcseconds/Julian Century). Welp, Einstein's theory of general relativity saves the day yet again. In Einstein's theory of general relativity, he uses the equation s://wikimedia.org...; alt="{\displaystyle \sigma ={\frac {24\pi ^{3}L^{2}}{T^{2}c^{2}(1-e^{2})}}\ ,}" /> (where where L is the semi-major axis, T is the orbital period, c is the speed of light, and e is the orbital eccentriciy) which calculates the correct value for the pereihelion precession of Mercury.Further, I'm curious as to how your geocentric model accounts for this clear perihelion precession? It's a fundamental probelm in cosmology after all. (http://www.relativity.li...)(https://en.wikipedia.org...) 4.) Deflection of light by the Sun:The reason for this is essentially the same as it is for gravitational lensing. This was the smoking gun for many people, I believe it was observed during a solar eclipse (since that allowed you to see the apparent position of nearby stars, allowing you to compare them to their actual position which deviates from the apparent position due to the Sun's mass).Here's the study: (http://w.astro.berkeley.edu...)Some more sources since I know how open my opponent is...right...: http://www.lacosmo.com...http://www.astro.ucla.edu... 5.) Gravitational redshift:This is a bit hard to explain to someone who doesn't know the fundamentals of general relativity, so I'll just list some sources.But just in case you don't decide to click on the sources --> Essentially, "Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicts that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation will lengthen as it climbs out of a gravitational well. Photons must expend energy to escape, but at the same time must always travel at the speed of light, so this energy must be lost through a change of frequency rather than a change in speed. If the energy of the photon decreases, the frequency also decreases. This corresponds to an increase in the wavelength of the photon, or a shift to the red end of the electromagnetic spectrum" (http://astronomy.swin.edu.au...)It's not a hard concept... just photons using up energy to overcome the force of gravity, the mathematics and details are best left to the experts however:http://iopscience.iop.org...http://astro.physics.uiowa.edu...http://scienceworld.wolfram.com...;(equations)This effect, by the way, is clearly observed from white dwarfs (https://arxiv.org...)http://www.physics.brocku.ca...6.) Light travel time delay testing: pretty self explainatory... pretty much some dude (Irwin I. Shapiro) showed that there was a time delay when radars are reflected off of planets in the Solar System. This delay occurs when the light gets near the Sun and gets curved --> more distance to travel --> larger time. here's the study --> https://ntrs.nasa.gov...other sources: https://arxiv.org...http://www.pbs.org...7.) The equivalence principle: essentially sets inertial and gravitational mass of an object as equalThis is why when you drop two objects of unequal mass, they fall at the same rate. I'm not too familiar on the subject, but you can read up on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org...https://science.nasa.gov...http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...8.) Frame-dragging tests http://webhome.phy.duke.edu...http://chartasg.people.cofc.edu...http://www.nature.com...9.) Binary pulsarshttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...http://www.people.carleton.edu...http://www.physics.umd.edu...I didn't have enough space to explain 8 and 9 sadly, but I think experts are much more reliable than my words...My explanation is better because it's simpler, easier to understand, and actually makes logical sense. Ya, it makes sense that the Earth would pretty much defy all known laws of physics and just stay still, not rotating, while be orbited by a Sun over 300,000x massive along with all the planets. Yes, how could I have been so blind. Let alone the NASA missions that land on Mars... yes, they totally just ignored that the Sun rotates around the Earth. Let alone that the helicocentric model easily explains all the problems I presented without the need to add in some complex detail. Oh boy.First of all, they've both failed plenty of tests. Secondly, Einstein's General Relativity says the sun can revolve around Earth, no problem.Source? I don't even know where to start with how wrong this is. I like how my opponent fails to present a SINGLE failed test. WHERE it says that General Relativity alows for the geocentric model (just blatantly wrong). Since my opponent didn't present any evidence... it's automatically wrong. Welcome to science and facts.Mars orbits the sun while the sun revolves around Earth. Here's a really good animation to show you what I mean:According to that animation.. the retrograde motion occurs WITHIN THE DAY (apparent from the motion of the Sun in the animation). Wow... it takes weeks if not MONTHS (read the dates here https://www.astrologyzone.com...)My opponet puts NO evidence for ANY of his claims, there is no evidence that Venus revolves in that matter. That the model of the solar system behaves in that presented way. Failure to show how the same geocentric model can compensate for all my presented problems (I'll add in the perehilion precession of Mercury for fun) without evidence already points out the superiority of the heliocentric model.I don't get why my opponent most likely believes that the government is trying to "cover this up", why would it even slightly benefit them? Also, please please PLEASE actually read the sources.Report this Argument Pro "I would like to see one test (that isn't posted by some random blogger, I'm talking about certified scientists) that disproves either theory."Here you go, On a Fringe Movement Registered on a Platform in Uniform Motion: "The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention ... with the result provided by this experiment." (1) "I was saying how his theories weren't SPECIFICALLY meant for the expirement"His Special Relativity theory was specifically meant for the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein said it himself. Please stop mispelling the word experiment."1.) Gravitational lensing ... literally just stare into a telescope and you will find gravitational lensing everywhere"Wrong! Gravitational lensing is not everywhere, but if your explanation of these curved galaxies were correct, that they appear to be curved because their light is being distorted by gravity, we should see gravitational lensing everywhere. There should not be a single object in the sky that isn't lensed, because gravity is everywhere. The entire sky should just be lensed images of distorted stars and galaxies. Do we see this? No, so your cool images cannot be explained by gravitational lensing."2.) Gravitational waves ...Not much to debate about there"There's nothing to debate because you haven't made an argument ... you just listed some sources you say claim gravitational waves exist. If you want to raise a point you're going to have to explain what gravitational waves are, how Relativity predicts them, and how they've been detected."3.) Perihelion precession of Mercury ... did not match the prediction by Newton's laws of gravity. "But you said Newton's laws of gravity passed all tests with flying colors! Now you admit it failed the precession of Mercury test. "In Einstein's theory of general relativity, he uses the equation ... which calculates the correct value for the pereihelion precession of Mercury."That equation was created by Gerber over 10 years before Einstein, and it explained the precession of Mercury without Relativity. Even Einstein said: Gerber ... already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of Mercury before me. (2) "4.) Deflection of light by the Sun ... I believe it was observed during a solar eclipse"That study was wrong. "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions ... can neither prove, nor disprove the relativity theory ... The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections" (3) "5.) Gravitational redshift ... This is a bit hard to explain to someone who doesn't know the fundamentals of general relativity"Hey! I corrected you about your misunderstanding of Relativity but you are going to pretend I'm the one who doesn't understand it? Voters, go back to Round 2 where I point out that my opponent didn't understand that in General Relativity the speed of light is not the same for all observers!Besides, this redshift proves nothing. The redshift is simply the color of the light and has nothing to do with gravity. You interpret it as being caused by gravity because you want Relativity to be true. "6.) Light travel time delay testing ... there was a time delay when radars are reflected off of planets in the Solar System. This delay occurs when the light gets near the Sun and gets curved"How do radars get reflected off of planets? Did you mean to say light gets reflected off of radars on planets?"7.) The equivalence principle: essentially sets inertial and gravitational mass of an object as equalThis is why when you drop two objects of unequal mass, they fall at the same rate. I'm not too familiar on the subject"The equivalence principle has been proven wrong. In the 1999 paper called Short range tests of the equivalence principle, gravity has been proven to attract lead and copper at different speeds. (4)"Ya, it makes sense that the Earth would pretty much defy all known laws of physics"Which law of physics is Earth defying? Remember Isaac Newton said Earth could stand still. Do you disagree with Newton?"NASA missions that land on Mars... yes, they totally just ignored that the Sun rotates around the Earth."It's just a matter of perspective. They might've used a heliocentric frame to land on Mars but they use a geocentric frame to put satellites in space. (5)(6) When it comes to doing something like that it's just a matter of convenience whether to pretend Earth or the sun is standing still. But when it comes to the truth, only one can be truly still, and that's Earth."WHERE it says that General Relativity alows for the geocentric model (just blatantly wrong)."Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, said: If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets. (7) Tycho's theory of geocentrism is the one I believe in. I showed a picture of it earlier in this debate."According to that animation.. the retrograde motion occurs WITHIN THE DAY ... Wow... it takes weeks if not MONTHS"Of course it was sped up for illustration purposes so you wouldn't have to wait months to finish watching. And the daily revolution of the sun was taken out so that you wouldn't get dizzy seeing it spin. Any actual concerns with the animation or is that it?"I don't get why my opponent most likely believes that the government is trying to "cover this up""I never said the government is trying to cover anything up. They know a geocentric frame is just as valid as a heliocentric one and as I proved with my quotes, they openly admit it. You're the one in the dark. Wake up! (1) http://www.conspiracyoflight.com...(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber(3) www.osapublishing.org/josa/abstract.cfm?id=48467(4) http://inspirehep.net...(5) ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-95/95A.PDF(6) ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19880063126(7) Steven Weinberg, To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, page 251 Report this Argument Con Please stop mispelling the word experiment.Voters, please note that my opponent has stooped so low as to "kritik" me (attacking my spelling instead of my actual argument, something totally irrelevant to the debate).Wrong! Gravitational lensing is not everywhere... the entire sky should just be lensed images of distorted stars and galaxies.This just confirms my opponent doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Firstly, gravitational lensing is mostly weak gravitational lensing, meaning it is not visible to the human eye since it is less than 1% distortion. Secondly, I don't know about you, but I can't see entire galaxies with my naked eye, you need high-powered telescopes to see galaxies as more than one dimensional dots. The stars, of course, aren't going to be lensed since they are all (for the most part) in our own Milky Way galaxy, visible lensing only happens when the light from galaxies are lensed by entire galaxies. Yes, gravty is everywhere, but you need an insane amount of gravity to actual lense an object. Further, even with high-powered telescopes such as Hubble, strong gravitational lensing requires nearly-perfect alignment with the 2 galaxies. I was clearly exaggerating when I said "you see gravitational lensing everywhere", but nevertheless it is a very common occurence that is used for measuring dark matter, analyzing galaxies, etc.If you want to raise a point you're going to have to explain what gravitational waves are, how Relativity predicts them, and how they've been detected.I assumed that you and the audience would be familiar with gravitational waves since they are a fairly recent occurence and that the explanations of experts in the field are far superior to my own, but if you want I will.Gravitational waves are essentially waves in the "fabric of space-time", in Einstein's theory of general relativity, Einstein predicts that massive objects (neutron stars, black holes, etc.) would disrupt space-time and cause ripples. I am not going to start with where in the actual theory it says that because it requires very complex mathematics that requires decades of experience,something I nor my opponent nor the audience has; however, I don't know why my opponent wants to debate whether or not Einstein predicted them... you don't hear gravitational waves without hearing Einstein's name attached, it's just pathetic that my oppoennt is blatantly denying facts... but I expected no less. Here are some studies backing me uphttps://arxiv.org...https://arxiv.org...Gravitational waves were detected via LIGO in which they used laser interferomtry to detected "wobbles" to incredibly high accuracies, down to a ten-thousandth of the diameter of a proton. "A laser beam is split down two 2.5-mile (4 kilometers) arms containing mirrors. The laser beams reflect back and forth off of mirrors, coming back to converge at the crux of the arms, canceling each other out. The passage of a gravitational wave would alter the length of the arms, causing the beams to travel different distances. The mismatch would be measurable with a light detector. LIGO facilities in Louisiana and Washington state operate simultaneously; the two data points allow triangulation of a gravitational wave's source in the sky."As always, here is some evidence because, although my opponent is unaware of this, all claims in science are backed up by EVIDENCE (as well as a solid foundation of mathematics). At least they are in true science.https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.ligo.caltech.edu...https://www.newyorker.com...That equation was created by Gerber over 10 years before Einstein, and it explained the precession of Mercury without Relativity.Interestingly enough, I actually looked at your source and found that (literally about 3 lines later) this is stated: "More importantly, Roseveare showed that Gerber's theory is in conflict with experience: the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun is too high in Gerber's theory, and if the relativistic mass is considered, also Gerber's prediction for the perihelion advance is wrong."As the reader can see, my opponent simply chery-picked what information he wanted to put in without mentioning the fallacies in Gerber's equation.That study was wrong.Your quote is taken from Dr. Lane, an infamous opposer to Einstein's theory of general relativity, of course he is going to be bias because he was opposing Einstein his entire life. Luckily for you, however, you are not living in the 1900s and now have thousands of studies confirming the initial study's observation of the Sun's deflection. For example:https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...http://www.jstor.org...http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...This clearly wasn't a mismeasurement, scientific expirements are tested again and again and again, ecspecially something as big as this. Here's even a photographHey! I corrected you about your misunderstanding of Relativity but you are going to pretend I'm the one who doesn't understand it?So high is my oppoennt's insecurity that he immediately assumes I'm talking to him; I was attempting to make it clear that I was talking about the audience who is most likely not familiar with the mathematics of General Relativity. You interpret it as being caused by gravity because you want Relativity to be true. What? What does this statement even mean? The "color of light" is very important since as it gets "redder", it symbolizes the loss of energy as it battles the FORCE of gravity. In science, facts and opinions are not combined when making an observation, gravitational redshift is clearly a direct result of gravity. For example, the Pound-Rebka expirement which essentially shot a beam of light to the top of the Harvard Tower and "demonstrated that a beam of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it climbed out of Earth's gravity and up an elevator shaft in the Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift predicted by Einstein's Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift detected came within ten percent of the computed value. Quite a feat!" (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...)https://en.wikipedia.org...More expirements:https://journals.aps.org...https://search.proquest.com...https://arxiv.org... How do radars get reflected off of planets? Did you mean to say light gets reflected off of radars on planets?You just offended all the radar astronomers reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org..."Radar astronomy is a technique of observing nearby astronomical objects by reflecting microwaves off target objects and analyzing the reflections"The equivalence principle has been proven wrong... gravity has been proven to attract lead and copper at different speeds. Can you please explain exactly what the study shows? It seems to me, by reading the abstract ( I can't access the whole study for some reason), that you are exaggerating, if not lying. Remember Isaac Newton said Earth could stand still.Yes, and a giant goldfish could have made the universe, I still haven't seen any undeniable evidence that the Earth is geocentric nor any flaws in the heliocentric theory. You just seem to be taking what I say, making the opposite claim with absolutely no evidence, and then trying to make me look like I don't understand anything. Pretty low if I'm going to be honest. Also, your next quote contradicts itself where Weinberg states " if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.". What is this force? How come you haven't even brought it up? Tycho's theory of geocentrism is the one I believe in. I showed a picture of it earlier in this debate.Yes, audience, my opponent evidently passes through my tens of studies done by experts in the field of cosmology, yet my opponent has put nothing but a picture supporting geocentrism. A digitally drawn picture at that, I can draw a digitally drawn picture of a plate upon a turtle holding the Earth... we would both have the same amount of evidenceOf course it was sped up for illustration purposes so you wouldn't have to wait months to finish watching.I dont think you understand. In the animation, the total period for the retrograde motion in the ANIMATION'S TIME (NOT IN THE VIDEO'S TIME, the video is like 5 minutes) takes a matter of a day or so. Which you can see because in the animation, by the time Mars has completed its retrograde motion, the Sun has just completed its revolution around the Earth, which YOU defined as a day. Consequently, the animation is implying that the retrograde motion of Mars ACCORDING TO YOUR MODEL takes a matter of a day or so when the actual OBSERVERED time is a matter of weeks. they (the government) openly admit it (the geocentric model)What? I've never seen a government website supporting the geocentric model. In fact, if you look for 1 min on a NASA website, you will find statements like "While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits" (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...)Report this Argument Pro "Yes, gravty is everywhere, but you need an insane amount of gravity to actual lense an object. Further, even with high-powered telescopes such as Hubble, strong gravitational lensing requires nearly-perfect alignment with the 2 galaxies."For every galaxy there is another galaxy perfectly aligned behind it at some distance, so there should be lensing everywhere. But there isn't."Gravitational waves were detected via LIGO"I read about that. Supposedly light didn't take as long as normal to travel down a tube because that tube was shortened by a gravity wave. But if there aren't any gravity waves, then the light beam reached the end of the tunnel faster not because the tunnel was squashed but because the light itself was propelled faster than c by the gravity wave, breaking Einstein's theory, and you can't prove this wrong. So gravity waves aren't proof of Relativity. They can be explained without it."As the reader can see, my opponent simply chery-picked what information he wanted to put in without mentioning the fallacies in Gerber's equation."The equation is exactly the same as Einstein's, so if it has a fallacy then that means General Relativity has a fallacy."Luckily for you, however, you are not living in the 1900s and now have thousands of studies confirming the initial study's observation of the Sun's deflection."That's not proof of General Relativity since Isaac Newton already predicted this in his book Opticks: “Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action strongest at the least distance?” "The "color of light" is very important since as it gets "redder", it symbolizes the loss of energy as it battles the FORCE of gravity."That's what you believe, but there's no proof the light is red because it lost energy from gravity. Maybe the light is just naturally red. After all when you look at an apple you know the light coming from the apple is naturally red, you don't claim the apple's gravity made it red."You just offended all the radar astronomers reading this."Did I? All I asked was how do radars, like the radars themselves, get reflected off of planets like you said? Radars reflect things, but radars themselves aren't reflected!"Can you please explain exactly what the study shows?"The gravity of a giant chunk of uranium was used to attract a tiny piece of copper and a tiny piece of lead, and it acclerated them at different speeds."Also, your next quote contradicts itself where Weinberg states " if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.". What is this force? How come you haven't even brought it up?"I don't know what this force is, I just quoted this to show you that Newton admitted if this force exists than geocentrism can be true."Which you can see because in the animation, by the time Mars has completed its retrograde motion, the Sun has just completed its revolution around the Earth, which YOU defined as a day"If I did that, I made a mistake. The revolution of the sun in the animation is clearly its annual revolution."In fact, if you look for 1 min on a NASA website, you will find statements like "While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits""According to Relativity that you believe in, Copernicus was right and wrong at the same time because that's how stupid Relativity is. I already proved to you that NASA uses a geocentrism frame of reference for launching satellites. Look at this NASA paper, Deriving a Geocentric Reference Frame For Satellite Position and Navigation: ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-95/95A.PDF Report this Argument Con For every galaxy there is another galaxy perfectly aligned behind it at some distance, so there should be lensing everywhere. But there isn't.I believe you are referring to Olber's Paradox where he states "why isn't the sky completely bright" since everywhere you look, there should be a star/galaxy, thus making the whole entire night sky bright. Obviously, this isn't case. Some explanation include The Universe has only a finite number of stars. The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars,but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them. The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity. The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet Now just substitute galaxy for stars and you have your answer for why strong gravitational lensing is not everywhere. The equation is exactly the same as Einstein's, so if it has a fallacy then that means General Relativity has a fallacy.But... they weren't the exact same equation... Gerber uses the finite speed of GRAVITATION while Einstein uses the finite speed of LIGHT(https://arxiv.org...)But if there aren't any gravity waves, then the light beam reached the end of the tunnel faster not because the tunnel was squashed but because the light itself was propelled faster than c by the gravity wave, breaking Einstein's theory, and you can't prove this wrong. So gravity waves aren't proof of Relativity. They can be explained without it.Where do I even start with this. You essentially just said "the only way this result could have happened with gravity is if the light travelled faster than c"... which is impossible because the speed limit for all objects is c (if you want to oppose this, fine, just show me one instance where an object travelled faster than c, including light). Further, what force would propell the light so that it travels faster than c? Further, if it can be explained so easily, why did you not include an explanation that contradicts itself in the first sentence? Anyone who knows the first thing about electromagnetisim is that it can travel faster than the speed of light (c) in a vacuum, it would travel even slower in a medium such as water/air/etc.Also, hate to break it to you, but science doesn't work by saying "well I think it's blah blah blah and you can't prove me wrong". You have to present a claim and put evidence for it. Otherwise, I could simply say there is an invisible turtle hovering over your right shoulder that is impossible to detect, and you can prove me wrong. By your logic, there is indeed such a turtle.Isaac Newton already predicted this in his book OpticksNewton OBSERVED the bending of light while Einstein presented an EXPLANATION back up by EVIDENCE and MATHEMATICS, also known as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. See the difference? Newton lacked an explanation for both the bending of light and gravity, he simply presented a plethora of LAWS that accurately matched what we OBSERVE and have so far passed all TERRESTRIAL tests (it's not perfect on larger scales, which is why we have Einstein's theory in the first place)That's what you believe, but there's no proof the light is red because it lost energy from gravity. Maybe the light is just naturally redYa.... no. In the expirement I posted in the previous argument, the expirementalists shot a beam of light (with a pre-determined wavelength) and found that as it travelled UP, the wavelength INCREASED --> meaning the energy DECREASED, making your argument of "it just could've intially had that color" invalid. I'll just restate the expirement for convience:The expirement "demonstrated that a beam of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it climbed out of Earth's gravity and up an elevator shaft in the Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift predicted by Einstein's Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift detected came within ten percent of the computed value." (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu......)(referring to "You just offended all radar astronomers reading this")Did I? All I asked was how do radars, like the radars themselves, get reflected off of planets like you said? Radars reflect things, but radars themselves aren't reflected! joke j!3;k noun 1. a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline. synonym: geocentricismAlso, radars are essentially radio waves... light can be reflected off of planets... https://en.wikipedia.org...I'm not talking about the actual objects that detect these radio waves, obviously, since there are no such objects on the planets. However, light is obviously reflected (mirrors wouldn't work otherwise).I don't know what this force is, I just quoted this to show you that Newton admitted if this force exists than geocentrism can be true.Well, I could say that I could float if another force counter-acted gravity... yet no such force exists. Likewise in this scenario, according to Newton, geocentrism can ONLY be true if this force EXISTS, yet you don't even know the NAME of the force. Since the force doesn't exist, geocentrism doesn't either according to Newton's statement.The revolution of the sun in the animation is clearly its annual revolution.But if it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, then days would last for a year. You clearly stated in the 2nd round "Day and night are caused by the sun's 24 hour revolution around Earth. The seasons are caused by the center of the sun's daily revolution annually oscillating.".Now you are saying that it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, ruining the idea of day/night in geocentrism. You see reader, this is exactly what I was initially talking about: models o geocentrisim makes things up on the spot to compensate for observations, often leading to contradiction like this one, where the retrograde motion according to geocentrisim takes days when in reality it takes weeks, and when my opponent tried to rebute that geocentrisim makes up for this due to the Sun's annual motion around the Earth, now days last for a year, something that clearly isn't true. According to Relativity that you believe in, Copernicus was right and wrong at the same time because that's how stupid Relativity is.What does this even mean? "Helicoentric model is false cause Relativity is dumb". What? Please don't fall back on 1st grade arguments.I already proved to you that NASA uses a geocentrism frame of reference for launching satellitesHere was my opponent's "proof": "It's just a matter of perspective. They might've used a heliocentric frame to land on Mars but they use a geocentric frame to put satellites in space. (5)(6) When it comes to doing something like that it's just a matter of convenience whether to pretend Earth or the sun is standing still. But when it comes to the truth, only one can be truly still, and that's Earth."Yes, it is convienient to use different frames, however your argument does nothing to prove that geocentrisim is the right one, you're just stating "NASA uses both frames, but geocentrisim is right because I said so". My opponent provides absolutely no proof of this statement whatsoever.Then right after saying that NASA uses both frames for CONVIENCE (not because one is right or wrong) he attempts to use a study where NASA uses a geocentric frame as proof that geocentrisim is the right model, when in reality, it just simplifies the study (since you don't have to talk about Earth's orbital motion, the Sun's motion in the Milky Way, etc.). In conclusion, my dear reader, my opponent lacks fundamental evidence for any of his claims. He simply spits out the opposite of what I say, ignoring all fundamental laws of physics, mathematics, etc. for the sake of disagreeing with me. He has stooped to the level of attempting to personally insult me and has turned to arguments such as "this doesn't work because Relativity is stupid", childish is not a strong enough word to accurately portray my disgust. He has contradicted himself with Mercury's precession/the sun's motion. He has not even presented evidence for the geocentric model, the topic this debate is about, instead going on a practically irrelevant tangent about General Relativity in which he simply immaturely throws aside any argument thrown at him without first presenting evidence support his claim. He has shown signs of the utmost ignorance, refusing to keep a open mind, leading to the thought that perhaps I am indeed wasting my precious time talking to deaf ears. My opponent has one argument left to present evidence for his model, I suggest he does so. Otherwise, he will have never even made an actual argument (backed up by evidence and mathematics) supporting his view on geocentricism. Report this Argument Pro "I believe you are referring to Olber's Paradox"Yes."Some explanations include ... The Universe has only a finite number of stars."If the universe is finite then it has a boundary and a center, relative to which the absolute motion could be measured, contrary to Relativity."... The distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars, but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them."This would be contrary to the Big Bang, which says the distribution of stars mut be uniform."... The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity."If the universe is 3D (as experience proves) and is expanding so that all stars are red-shifted (moving away) from Earth's perspective, that requires Earth to be the center of the universe."... The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet."It's unclear what you mean by young. Thousands of years? Millions? Billions?"But... they weren't the same exact equation... Gerber uses the finite speed of GRAVITATION while Einstein uses the finite speed of LIGHT"Your own paper says Gerber had gravity going at the speed of light, making the speed of gravity and light identical. Further, your paper does not say they weren't the same exact equation. They were the same equation as Eintein noted, as I cited in a previous round."Where do I even start with this."By explaining why a gravity wave squashing the tunnel makes more sense than gravity slowing down the light."You essentially just said "the only way this result could have happened with gravity is if the light travelled faster than c"... which is impossible because the speed limit for all objects is c (if you want to oppose this, fine, just show me one instance where an object travelled faster than c, including light)."The Wang experiment demonstrates light going faster than c. (1) Here is an animation illustrating it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmGStcDcUGk The second part of the animation is the same as the first, except in the observer's frame. The observer records one light beam going c minus the observer's speed, and the other light beam going c plus the observer's speed."Newton OBSERVED the bending of light while Einstein presented an EXPLANATION"Newton did not observer it, but he predicted it explaining that gravity should bend light towards a mass."Newton lacked an explanation for both the bending of light and gravity"For the bending of light his explanation was gravity. For gravity, you are right that he didn't have an explanation."he simply presented a plethora of LAWS that accurately matched what we OBSERVE and have so far passed allTERRESTRIAL tests."No, it didn't the pass the test where the gravity of uranium attracted copper and lead at different speeds. You completely ignored that experiment in this round. Why?"as it travelled UP, the wavelength INCREASED --> meaning the energy DECREASED, making your argument of "if just could've initially had that color" invalid."My argument was talking about the redshift of starlight, I never denied that in principle redshift can be caused by gravity. I was simply saying that the redness of starlight might not be caused by gravity, but might simply be its natural color. So my argument stands that redness is not proof of gravity stretching the light."Also, radars are essentially radio waves"If your native language English? If it's not, then it's easier to understand why you are so confused as to the definition of "radar." A radar is not radio waves, not essentially, and not in any sense. Radars are things that detect radio waves, but radars themselves are not radio waves."Likewise in this scenario, according to Newton, geocentrism can ONLY be true if this force EXISTS, yet you don't even know the NAME of the force."In General Relativity the force is called gravity and it's created by the rotation of the universe around Earth."But if it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, then days would last for a year."There are two motions of the sun, the annual revolution and the daily revolution. The daily revolution is not shown in my animation for the same reason the Earth's spin isn't shown in time-lapse photos of Mars' retrograde motion: the retrograde motion would not be seen with the daily revolution superimposed over the annual revolution.Look at this photo. It shows Mars in the sky at the same clock-time over several nights spaced over a period of weeks. Using your logic, this means one night on Earth lasts several weeks. You fail to realize that the daily revolution of the sun, stars and universe around the Earth is omitted in the photo because that's the only way to see Mars perform the retrograde motion. This photo is taken from Earth, therefore its perspective is Geocentric. This proves that Mars' retrograde motion is compatible with Geocentrism.I hope you understand this explanation."What does this even mean? "Helicoentric model is false cause Relativity is dumb". What?"I said Relativity is stupid because it allows for both geocentrism and heliocentrism. It says both are equally true when in reality, only one can be."Yes, it is convienient to use different frames, however your argument does nothing to prove that geocentrisim is the right one, you're just stating "NASA uses both frames, but geocentrisim is right because I said so""I didn't say geocentrism is right because "I said so." I said it's right because the best interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that Earth is standing still. I understand that Relativity is anotherexplanation, but Relativity is false. This can be proven using logic alone. Take Relativity's premise that the speed of light is always c no matter what frame of reference you use. Then, use the reference frame of a particle of light, a photon. According to Relativity, this photon must be moving at c, but since all frames are motionless relative to themselves, it must also be not moving at all. So we arrive at the absurd conclusion that a photon is both moving at c and not moving at all. Its speed is zero and c at the same time.Let me put this in syllogism form to make it clearer: Premise 1: Photons always move at c. Premise 2: Frames are always motionless relative to themselves. Conclusion: In the frame of a photon, that photon is moving at c and motionless at the same time. Impossible!My other proof that Relativity is false is the Wang experiment I cited previously. Since these two points falsify Relativity, we have eliminated Relativity as a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment and must resort to the last one standing:Geocentrism.Report this Argument Con If the universe is finite then it has a boundary and a center, relative to which the absolute motion could be measured, contrary to Relativity.The Hubble's Bubble/Observable Universe is finite, the actual physical universe could be infinite. However, we can't see outside the Hubble Hubble since the space beyond that boundary is travelling faster than light. (No, that does not contradict Einstein's theories because space/spacetimeexpansion is dictated by Einstein's theory of GENERAL Relativity, which, unlike SPECIAL Relativity, does not have a speed of limit; I find that youmade that mistake countless amounts of times), so we can only see a finite amount of stars.Regardless, we are not the center of the universe since spacetime itself is expanding. Think about it as some flies glued onto the surface of a balloon,as you blow up the flies, they are all moving apart from each other. And, from the perspective of each fly, all the other flies are moving away from itmaking it appear as he/she is the center of the balloon. Clearly, he/she isn't.  This would be contrary to the Big Bang, which says the distribution of stars mut be uniform. The Big Bang Theory never makes that distinction; however, a main assumption of Cosmology is that space is homogeneous. However, you are a fool if you truly think that applies onto scales of stars, homogeneity is only apparent on scales of GIGAPARSECS (billions of parsecs; a parsec being roughly 3.3 light years).Also, homeogeneity and isotropy are VERY apparent in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) which is uniform to a factor ofof about 1 part in 100,000! (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu...)Obviously, it can't be perfectly uniform because then we wouldn't have galaxies since matter wouldn't collapse into any points due to the perfectly uniformity, so the CMB fits perfectly with our current model of the Universe. If the universe is 3D (as experience proves) and is expanding so that all stars are red-shifted (moving away) from Earth's perspective, that requires Earth to be the center of the universe.First off, the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us under the influence of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org...)so not all objects are moving away from us (they should be if we are the center).Secondly, as I explained earlier, since space itself is expanding, it appears that every object is the center of the universe. Thirdly, a common misconception is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, all the Big Bang requires is that the early universebe extremely dense, the Big Bang is more accurately explained as "uniform exponential expansion" more than an explosion from a singularity.So there was no "center" neccessarily for the Big Bang, there could be, but it doesn't require it.Fourthly, the universe is boundaryless, consequently, it's impossible for there to be a center for such an object. (center relative to what?) By explaining why a gravity wave squashing the tunnel makes more sense than gravity slowing down the light.Where did this come from? What gravity would affect the light in the tunnel? Even the gravity of the entire Earth doesn't affected the light.Do you really think that the people behind this project, costing millions of dollars, didn't think of one of the most simple things: gravity?You don't give evidence for why gravity would affect the light in the ways observered in the first place, so I won't waste space typing a rebuttal to it. The Wang experiment demonstrates light going faster than c. Here my opponent goes again... severely oversimplifying complicated expirements to the point where his conclusion is just plain WRONG.To truly understand why the Wang expirement doesn't allow for superluminal speeds of light, a very deep knowledge of optics/light is needed,something that neither I nor (clearly) my opponent has. Just in case there a few that are experts on light, here is an explanation:"The wavepacket seems to exit the cell well before it enters, but the negative refractive index "forward shifts" the leading edge of the pulse. It is argued that although this is superluminal, information cannot be transmitted faster than c. Gauthier and Stenner (https://journals.aps.org...)introduced a jump discontinuity into the waveform. Its max speed was c ". https://physics.stackexchange.com...(https://www.nature.com...)http://www.physics.louisville.edu...  The observer records one light beam going c minus the observer's speed, and the other light beam going c plus the observer's speed.According to Special Relativity, this is not how things work. If you travel at a certain velocity, v, if you turn on a flashlight, the light doesn'tgo at v+c. But, I forgot, you deny basic facts... my bad. Nevertheless, this animation doesn't work as proof... I could make an animationblatanly breaking all known laws by placing the Earth on top of turtle while the Earth is in the shape of a dragon. Same proof as you provided.No, it didn't the pass the test where the gravity of uranium attracted copper and lead at different speeds. You completely ignored that experiment in this round. Why?I ignored that expirement because you did the same thing you did with the Wang's expirement... severely oversimplifying the expirement, drawing a completelyfalse conclusion. It is clear that you didn't understand the expirement, so I had no reason to waste my time trying to convince you of otherwise.So my argument stands that redness is not proof of gravity stretching the light.I never said that "redness" is a proof of gravitational redshift. I said gravitational redshift can CAUSE redshift, as you just admitted.Since you seem to agree that gravity can cause redshift, I have nothing to say, you just confirmed that you agree in favor of general relativity. Radars are things that detect radio waves, but radars themselves are not radio waves.You know what I meant, stop focusing on my spelling/word choice and focus on the actual argument please.Otherwise, it just shows you have nothing better to do. I would understand if you didn't know what I meant, but you clearlyknow I meant that actual radio waves, not the radars themselves. And yes, English isn't my native language.In General Relativity the force is called gravity and it's created by the rotation of the universe around Earth.What? First off, if that "force" was gravity, Newton would have just said so, gravity already "existed". Secondly, how the bloody hell is gravity caused by the rotation of the universe?How does the universe even rotate? What energy causes this rotation? There are two motions of the sun, the annual revolution and the daily revolution.How can there be an annual revolution and a daily revolution? Do you mean that 365.25 daily revolutions make up an annual revolution?I don't see how the motion in the animation is an "annual revolution" (whatever the heck that even means).Earth's spin isn't shown in the photo because all they did was just take a picture once a night of mars, in your animation,it's a continous motion. There is no pause. Okay, but let's just say that IS the annual revolution. That would mean that theretrograde motion lasts about a YEAR according to your animation since it takes one annual revolution for Mars to complete itsretrograde motion. So..... it's still off the observed length of time: a couple of weeks. Using your logic, this means one night on Earth lasts several weeksNo it doesn't... that photo is, by your own words, taken "at the same clock-time over several nights spaced over a period of weeks".However, your animation is not like that, it's just that: an animation; continoues. Also, as I stated earlier, if that is the "annual revolution",the retrograde motion should last for about a year.This photo is taken from Earth, therefore its perspective is Geocentric. This proves that Mars' retrograde motion is compatible with Geocentrism.What? I think you're getting geocentric FRAMES OF REFERENCE and geocentricism mixed up. In our everyday lives, we are in a geocentric frame since the Earth is rotating and revolving at a constant velocity, consequently, it's impossible to feel that motion(constant velocity is impossible to feel). So it SEEMS as if everything is standing still. For example, if I'm riding a train at a constantvelocity, it seems as if I'm still and everything is moving away from me. This clearly isn't the case...However, the model of the SOLAR SYSTEM is NOT geocentric. I don't see what the cooleration is whatsoever, you just said"this picture was taken from Earth, therefore this proves geocentrism". What? Premise 1: Photons always move at c. (True) Premise 2: Frames are always motionless relative to themselves. (INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCES ARE IMPOSSIBLE FOR PHOTONS, it is a basic fact (https://arxiv.org...) Conclusion: In the frame of a photon, that photon is moving at c and motionless at the same time. (Ya...... no). ConclusionMy opponent never presents any evidence whatsoever nor fluent mathematics. He simply, once again, goes off on a tangentas to dodge needing to present evidence for geocentricism. He denys basic facts for the sake of denying them. He personally attacks me. He "kritiks" my spelling instead of my word choice.He never presented actual evidence for geocentricism, instead going off on a tangent and denying everything, as fundamental as it is. He refuses to keep his ears open. This behavior is unacceptable in a civilized debate. The absence of undeniable proof for geocentricism results in the automatic loss of my opponent. He was unable to provide evidence for how to account for the retrograde motion of Mars, the phases of Venus, etc. instead turning to pictures/animations that don't prove anything. You need SOURCESand MATH. Report this Argument
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fernyx 7 months ago
"boring maths don't help anybody understand anything."

Um... I really have no words to say. Science and math go hand in hand, Chem, Physics, etc. They are all very dependent on maths. You can't just ignore something because YOU do not understand it.
Posted by Fernyx 7 months ago
"boring maths don't help anybody understand anything."

Um... I really have no words to say. Science and math go hand in hand, Chem, Physics, etc. They are all very dependent on maths. You can't just ignore something because YOU do not understand it.
Posted by FishAndChips22 7 months ago
Ah, never mind, I didn't see the scroll button at the very bottom, my bad
Posted by FishAndChips22 7 months ago
Why the heck was the majority of my last argument cut off??
Posted by Goldtop 7 months ago
Edl is now answering for pro? Are Edlvsjd and Geocentrism one and the same?
Posted by Goldtop 7 months ago
Premise 1: Photons always move at c.

Correct.

Premise 2: Frames are always motionless relative to themselves.

False.

Conclusion: In the frame of a photon, that photon is moving at c and motionless at the same time.

Gibberish.
Posted by FishAndChips22 7 months ago
what does that even mean Edlvsjd...
Posted by Edlvsjd 7 months ago
I don't, well not the theoretical version of gravity anyway
Posted by SheBlindedMeWithScience 7 months ago
So pro, do you believe gravity is a thing?
No votes have been placed for this debate.