Vote
23 Total Votes
1

Heliocentrism

21 votes
5 comments
2

Geocentrism

2 votes
0 comments
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-10T23:33:20.7015953Z
@zookdook1: I disagree. I think a geocentric model is probably more likely and scientifically valid than heliocentric one.
boognish says2017-01-11T06:41:12.0415593Z
@Kescarte_Dejudica - How would a geocentric model account for the motions of the other planets?
Cat47 says2017-01-11T12:39:41.5713461Z
@Boognish Althought I am not referring to Kescarte here but a lot of Geo-centrists have tried to counter that argument with "The other planets don't exist". Nothing new.
Cat47 says2017-01-11T12:40:00.7781614Z
@Boognish Althought I am not referring to Kescarte here but a lot of Geo-centrists have tried to counter that argument with "The other planets don't exist". Nothing new.
Cat47 says2017-01-11T12:40:34.8173614Z
I accidentally posted that comment twice.
zookdook1 says2017-01-11T16:44:46.6649614Z
Kescarte, as others have said, how does it account for the orbits of other planets? It also implies that either gravity doesn't exist, and it's some other force affecting us and planets, or that the Earth has more mass than the Sun. Both are absurd.
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-11T21:29:35.7373145Z
@Boognish: Cat47 is right. I don't think that our current beliefs about what "other planets" are is very accurate. We think of them as spherical balls rotating around a larger ball (the sun). While I don't think this is an accurate model, I've yet to see a plausible alternative, as I don't know what the "other planets" actually are, if that makes sense.
Cat47 says2017-01-11T21:33:08.5546401Z
By "the other planets" we mean Mercury, Venus, , Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune. And if you wanna go beyond planets, Makemake, Ceres, Pluto, etc
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-11T21:37:58.6366401Z
@zookdook1: While I've yet to study the whole "Earth has larger mass than the sun" theory, I do currently hold to the idea that the theory of gravity is incorrect (i.E., gravity as we know it does not exist). And it is not actually as absurd an idea as it might first appear. The evidence against it chiefly comes from the fact that gravity on a sphere is more or less equal at any given point, but centrifugal force is uneven (there is more centrifugal force at the equator, and less as you get further away from the middle, towards the poles). But since gravity supposedly holds us on the globe by counteracting the centrifugal force, and it is even everywhere, then there would be a stronger gravitational pull in Canada, for example, then say Mexico. This would mean you would weigh more, etc. But no such difference exists. And that is the evidence against the theory of gravity.
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-11T21:39:37.8526401Z
@Cat47: I know what you mean by other planets, I'm just not sure what that looks like in a Geocentric model (i.E., the other planets are not planets at all, etc.)
Cat47 says2017-01-11T21:44:32.8642401Z
I had a gif as the poll picture but it didn't work
Cat47 says2017-01-11T21:45:58.1494401Z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waexG16WZrE As you can see, it would be pretty chaotic.
zookdook1 says2017-01-11T22:38:38.8342401Z
Kesc, by "Earth has larger mass than the sun" I meant that, assuming gravity is correct, the Earth must be of larger mass than the Sun to be able to hold other planets in orbit around it. Since your point of view is that gravity as we know it is nonexistent, the argument becomes a moot point. "The evidence against it chiefly comes from the fact that gravity on a sphere is more or less equal at any given point, but centrifugal force is uneven" The Earth is not spherical; it's actually wider at the Equator by a few kilometers. "there is more centrifugal force at the equator, and less as you get further away from the middle, towards the poles" What do you mean by that? "then there would be a stronger gravitational pull in Canada, for example, then say Mexico" It's actually the opposite. Since there's more mass beneath you in Mexico, you weigh ever so slightly more there. I find it quite funny that we're having this debate in the comments on a website solely for debating. Perhaps we should host a full-sized debate on this.
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-12T03:23:09.6469145Z
@Cat47: You're right, but that video assumes several things. 1. Gravity exists. 2. All planets are spherical. 3. Orbiting, and the "planets" as we know them, are an accurate model. If these are not accurate, then neither is the video
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-12T03:25:36.0685145Z
@zookdook1: You're right, this is fairly ironic. Though do to the subject matter, I think this would make a better forum discussion than a debate. Would you like to set one up?
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-12T03:39:01.1408887Z
@zookdook1: I mean that since the middle of the Earth is spinning faster than any point north or south of the middle, there is less centrifugal force at those points. Even if the earth does "bulge" in the middle, and the extra gravity there counteracts the extra centrifugal force, where I live (South Tennessee) people weigh the same as they would in Canada, but Tennessee is much closer to the middle of the globe than Canada, and therefore spins faster, and has more centrifugal force. Unless there is some sort of "bulge" here in TN, then this appears to be evidence against gravity.
zookdook1 says2017-01-12T19:22:34.0662051Z
Kesc, according to NASA, "The effective acceleration of gravity at the poles is 980.665 cm/sec/sec while at the equator it is 3.39 cm/sec/sec less due to the centrifugal force", so you weigh 0.35% less at the Pole. Interesting that it doesn't mention the equatorial bulge, but whatever.
Kescarte_DeJudica says2017-01-12T23:10:25.7050318Z
NASA appears to be mistaken. If there actually was a significant weight difference at the poles, you would weigh more not less. This is due to the fact that there is much less centrifugal force at the poles than the equator, or anywhere fairly close to the equator (Florida comes to mind).

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.