The Instigator
KostasT.1526
Con (against)
The Contender
Geocentricist
Pro (for)

Geocentrism

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
KostasT.1526 has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2017 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 103846
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (38)
Votes (0)

 

KostasT.1526

Con

Hello
I would like my opponent to prove that the earth is motionless, while I will provide evidence of the earth moving. Note that only arguments of scientific content will be acceptable, while the religious or pseudoscientific ones will not. The most convincing arguments of each side will declare the winner of this debate.
During the first round, my opponent is to inform me whether by motionless he means that the earth is spherical or not (that request of mine is so due to my encounter with quite a great number of people who believed in the earth being flat). He will also elaborate on the geocentric model and cosmological hypothesis or theory he believes in, and provide arguments and, if possible, evidence that support his claims. I will do the same in the beginning of the second round, while I also argue against my opponent's claims. Then the conversation may proceed in the same way.
Geocentricist

Pro



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. The other lightbeam was perpendicular to this one, but for argument's sake I'll pretend it 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.

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.
Debate Round No. 1
KostasT.1526

Con

Indeed, these were the results of the Michelson-Morley expirement. But you forget one thing; light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. According to this, the results were pretty logical. The expirement in that way also debunked the hypothesis of the ether as a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel.
Except from further arguments, I would like you to explain the cosmological hypothesis or theory you believe in.
I believe that the universe has no center, being homogenic and isotropic, and that the earth is a small planet orbiting the star known as "sun" and spinning. I also believe in the cosmological theory of big bang, which tells us that the universe started with the explosion of all the matter which was concentrated in one point, and hence that the universe is expanding. This is supported by evidence that include the redshift effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation, on which I can elaborate in my next argument, if you disagree with the concept of the big bang.
Proof of the rotation of the earth is the Coriolis effect, according to which, the air or sea currents are affected by the rotation of the earth, turning more right if in the northern hemisphere and more left if in the southern hemisphere. This effect is observable and is applied in meteorology, making predictions a lot more accurate, and oceanography.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...
I also want to ask you a few things concerning the Geocentric model (as I have pictured it in my mind through the image you sent me):
1. Once, I visited a well known observatory close to the area I live (Athens, Greece), and, since it was night, I was allowed to look through the telescope, which offered a great view of Saturn. But how was that able to happen, since, during the night, the Sun as well as the planets orbiting it, including Saturn, should not be visible?
2. The scientific society clearly states that the correct model is the heliocentric. Why would they lie about that?
3. In the picture you sent me, the Sun looks really smaller than the one pictured by the scientific society. But, judging by its size, nuclear fusion should not be able to happen, especially for a time as long as we know the Sun to exist. It also would not be able to produce radiation so intense as seen in cases like the Aurora borealis, for example. Any explanations about that?
4. The geocentric model used to be considered true, but it was gradually proven to be more and more inaccurate, forcing astronomers to add epicycles and epicycles on the previous ones on the planets' orbits, in order to make it better. The problem was solved by Kepler's modifications on the heliocentric model, while the geocentric model still lacked in accuracy. What makes you think it is true?
I hope I did not misunderstand anything about the geocentric model that you described. Please rationally answer these questions of mine, and provide more plausible proof in your next argument.
Geocentricist

Pro

"Indeed, these were the results of the Michelson-Morley expirement. But you forget one thing; light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. According to this, the results were pretty logical."

I didn't forget that the speed of light is constant. I simply don't believe it. It doesn't make sense. If a light wave is coming towards me while I'm walking, the speed of light will seem to be faster because we are both approaching either other. Specifically, it will be the speed of light plus my walking speed.

And if I'm walking away from it, it will be slower. The speed of light minus my walking speed.

This is just like two cars approaching either other in head-on collision. If each car is moving at 50 mph as measured by their speedometers (which measures speed relative to the ground), it will seem to the drivers of both cars that the other car is approaching at 100 mph.

Using this analogy one can see it's impossible for light to always be measured as going the same speed, since if you're moving with the lightbeam it'll seem to be going slower, and if you're going against it, it'll seem to be going faster. Just like in the car analogy.

"The expirement in that way also debunked the hypothesis of the ether as a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel."

It did not debunk the aether hypothesis. It just proved the aether wasn't moving relative to Earth.

"I would like you to explain the cosmological hypothesis or theory you believe in."

I believe what the Book of Genesis in the Bible says. The Earth was created about 6,000 years ago and the sun and moon and stars were created after the Earth. The universe is a sphere with Earth in the exact center, and the universe spins around Earth every 24 hours.

"I believe that the universe has no center, being homogenic and isotropic, and that the earth is a small planet orbiting the star known as "sun" and spinning."

If the universe has no center then the Earth is moving around the sun relative to what? And the Earth is spinning relative to what? All motion is relative, but not all motion is absolute. The concept of motion doesn't make sense without an implied frame of reference.

"the big bang ... is supported by evidence that include the redshift effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation"

Everything being redshifted means everything is moving away from Earth. Everything moving away from Earth proves Earth is the center of everything. That proves my theory right!

The cosmic microwave background radiation actually proves the big bang is wrong, not right. The Big Bang predicts the arrangement of stars and galaxies in the sky to be completely random, but this 30 second video shows the opposite:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk2Lgi3R4W4

"Proof of the rotation of the earth is the Coriolis effect"

Actually in General Relativity the Coriolis effect will be there even if Earth isn't spinning. I thought my opponent believed in General Relativity?

"1. Once, I visited a well known observatory close to the area I live (Athens, Greece), and, since it was night, I was allowed to look through the telescope, which offered a great view of Saturn. But how was that able to happen, since, during the night, the Sun as well as the planets orbiting it, including Saturn, should not be visible?"

My image didn't have Saturn in it. Sorry. Here is a better version:



"2. The scientific society clearly states that the correct model is the heliocentric. Why would they lie about that?"

My opponent earlier said he believes the universe has no center, in other words, it's acentric. So how can he believe in both heliocentrism and acentrism when they contradict each other? Anyway to get to the point, modern science believes in acentrism so I simply don't believe the Scientific Society has said heliocentrism is true. Can my opponent provide a link? And exactly what scientific society is he talking about?

"3. In the picture you sent me, the Sun looks really smaller than the one pictured by the scientific society. But, judging by its size, nuclear fusion should not be able to happen, especially for a time as long as we know the Sun to exist. It also would not be able to produce radiation so intense as seen in cases like the Aurora borealis, for example. Any explanations about that?"

My image is not drawn to scale. I forgot to point that out.

"4. The geocentric model used to be considered true, but it was gradually proven to be more and more inaccurate, forcing astronomers to add epicycles and epicycles on the previous ones on the planets' orbits, in order to make it better."

Actually Copernicus' heliocentric model had more epicycles than the geocentric one, so what you said isn't true.

"The problem was solved by Kepler's modifications on the heliocentric model, while the geocentric model still lacked in accuracy. What makes you think it is true?"


Kepler's modifications of orbit shapes work in the geocentric model just as well as in the heliocentric. Besides, the geocentrist Cassini said the orbits are not ellipses like Kepler claimed, but are actually Cassinian ovals. Today, hundreds of years later, there is still no proof which person was right. (1)

I believe the geocentric model is true because of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

(1) http://iopscience.iop.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KostasT.1526

Con

First of all, your concept of the speed of light is totally wrong. Electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. As mentioned in the comments, though, it can be observed to be different by an observer who is under different gravitational circumstances, due to general relativity. And, one more thing: Science does not care if you believe it or not. We say it is that way, because it has been tested. What you are doing wrong is to present motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics, being used to it because of your everyday experiences. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant.

You believe that the earth was created by God 6.000 years before? I'm sorry, but there are even trees and forests older than that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org...(tree)
I hope you can also explain the fossils that were discovered and prove the existence of dinosaurs and the fact that petroleum needs a few million years to be created.
https://www.google.gr...
Anyway, the reason I asked you that is to know, in case you deny the big bang, how did the universe result in being geocentric. But, seeing that you ascribe the existence of earth to God, I guess that the answer is the same.

The earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth, you can pick the frame of reference you like more. When saying that the earth revolves around the sun and spins, I apparently describe its motion relative to the sun.

Everything moving away from the earth does not prove your hypothesis right, because the earth being in the center of the universe is your assumption. I will quote Hubble to explain this:
...if we see the nebulae all receding from our position in space, then every other observer, no matter where he may be located, will see the nebulae all receding from his position. However, the assumption is adopted. There must be no favoured location in the Universe, no centre, no boundary; all must see the Universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist, postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity, which is his way of stating that the Universe must be pretty much alike everywhere and in all directions."

I really did not see how the video proves the big bang wrong. Explain yourself, please.

General relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the Coriolis effect. I do believe in it, but I disagree with your claim. How would the Coriolis effect still occur without the earth's rotation?

1. Thank you for the clarification.

2. Heliocentrism describes our solar system (I do not think a link is really needed here, but here you go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org...) and acentrism our universe. Hence, they do not contradict each other.
Furthermore, by "scientific society" I refer to all approved scientific organisations, such as NASA or CERN.

3. Alright, then. That makes things better.

4. Never did I say that Copernicus' model did not have epicycles. I said that the Geocentric too needed epicycles in order to be more accurate.
Truth is, I have inadequate knowledge of Cassini ovals, therefore I cannot elaborate on which one is right. Despite that, though, I looked it up and found out that the matter is, as you mentioned, debatable. I also saw how it would apply to the Geocentric model. Now that I have a good idea of the geocentric model you presented, I want to ask one more thing; Why do you believe the earth is in the center of the universe? Can you prove that belief?
Geocentricist

Pro

"Electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec."

That's Einstein's interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and it's called Special Relativity. If Special Relativity is wrong then there's no reason to think light-speed never changes.

"We say it is that way, because it has been tested."

Name one test that supports constancy of light-speed that also doesn't assume Earth moves. I can name a test that proves constancy of light-speed is false: The Wang experiment:

In this experiment, two light beams are measured to be moving at different speeds even though the observer doing the measuring is in an inertial frame. Here is an animation illustrating it:

  • www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmGStcDcUGk

"What you are doing wrong is to present motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics, being used to it because of your everyday experiences. Therefore, your analogy is irrelevant."

My analogy applies until you can show specifically why it doesn't.

"You believe that the earth was created by God 6.000 years before?"

That question and the like are for an Evolution debate.

"The earth is moving around the sun, or the sun around the earth, you can pick the frame of reference you like more. When saying that the earth revolves around the sun and spins, I apparently describe its motion relative to the sun."

Yes, you can describe the universe from either perspective, but only one description can represent the true reality.

"Everything moving away from the earth does not prove your hypothesis right, because the earth being in the center of the universe is your assumption. I will quote Hubble to explain this:"

I've got a better quote from Hubble:

  • Redshifts "would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth ... This hypothesis cannot be disproved" (1)

You see, Hubble himself said redshifts can't disprove Geocentrism.

"I really did not see how the video proves the big bang wrong. Explain yourself, please."

The Big Bang says the cosmic microwave background radiation should be evenly distributed in the sky, but the video shows a 3D temperature map of the radiation. This map shows the radiation has a pattern in it, giant blobs of temperature differences arranged opposite each other. But the Big Bang says this shouldn't exist; the Big Bang says the temperature differences should be evenly distributed across the sky, like random noise.

"General relativity has absolutely nothing to do with the Coriolis effect."

Yes it does; it says the Coriolis effect, while being a fictitious force in a rotating frame, is a real gravitational force when that same frame is considered non-rotating. To be more precise, General Relativity says that if Earth isn't rotating than it is the rotation of the universe (stars, galaxies, etc.) around Earth that causes the Coriolis force.

"Never did I say that Copernicus' model did not have epicycles. I said that the Geocentric too needed epicycles in order to be more accurate."

But the Geocentric model needed less.

"Why do you believe the earth is in the center of the universe?"

Because of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

"Can you prove that belief?"

Yes, with the Michelson-Morley experiment that showed Earth isn't orbiting the sun.

(1) ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept04/Hubble/Hubble3_2.html

Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
38 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 year ago
KostasT.1526
@Geocentricist
Nice decision. Thanks.
Posted by Geocentricist 1 year ago
Geocentricist
I sent you a new debate invitation for us to finish this debate!
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 year ago
KostasT.1526
@Geocentricist
I'm really sorry for that, I was late to post my argument - I was not well aware of the time limit. I right now have my argument ready. Would you mind creating an exactly same debate as this so that we can continue?
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 year ago
KostasT.1526
@Geocentricist
No, I said that it can be observed to be different by an observer who is under different gravitational circumstances. Don't make me repeat myself.
Posted by Geocentricist 1 year ago
Geocentricist
You admit the speed of light can change relative to an object at rest under different gravitational circumstances than the light beam?
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 year ago
KostasT.1526
@Geocentricist
The speed of light does not change, relative to an object that is at rest and under the same gravitational circumstances as the measured light beam.
Posted by Geocentricist 1 year ago
Geocentricist
Sheblindedmewithscience I did not make an argument from incredulity, I was simply restating that I rejected constancy of c. I already provided arguments why.
Posted by Geocentricist 1 year ago
Geocentricist
"But the speed of light itself does not change"

The speed of light relative to what?

You forgot to specify what frame again.
Posted by KostasT.1526 1 year ago
KostasT.1526
@Geocentricist
I'm sorry, I thought it was obvious that an observer measures velocity relative to their own position in space. Now I would be grateful if you used both this clarification and the example to finally understand what I'm trying to say. Hint: "light speed can be measured to vary depending on the difference between the gravitational circumstances under which the observer and the observed light are. But the speed of light itself does not change, as it is an electromagnetic wave".
Posted by SheBlindedMeWithScience 1 year ago
SheBlindedMeWithScience
c'mon, you're gonna have to come up with something much better than "I didn't forget that the speed of light is constant. I simply don't believe it. It doesn't make sense." Argument from incredulity fallacy ain't gonna cut it, friend.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.