... on Geocentrism being arrogant or disproven

Commenting on video:

youtube : SecularAstronomer : Arrogance of the theistically geocentric/biocentric mindset
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1PUjrcNCDw

ChipArgyle

[Ce commentaire a reçu trop de votes négatifs.]

Yeah, if I was God, that's where I'd put Earth too: right in the geometric center of the universe.

Oh, it's not there? It's tucked off to the side but not the edge, orbiting a star that by comparison to other stars can only be said to be wanting? Well that makes sense. If He'd put it in the middle, He wouldn't have plausible deniability working to His advantage, would he? Checkmate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What do you mean "Oh it's not there"? How do you know?

ChipArgyle

Astronomy. Big honking telescopes. There are numerous videos about Earth's location in the known universe right here on YouTube.

Besides, we know that everything in the universe is moving. If something was by happenstance ever at the geometric center of the universe, it would only be there for a fraction of a second.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Right. Telescopes are a means of looking at things in better resolution. Between what is seen on the telescopes (big and honking or otherwise) and what is shown as computer simulations on videos, between again what is seen in the telescopes and your position that "we know everything is moving", do have the courtesy to trace the logic connection. If there is one, that is.

ChipArgyle

"My" position that everything is moving? It's not "my" position. It's what we know about the universe thanks to hundreds of years of study by all of the participants in an entire field of science. Trace the logic connection? You've lost me. What's your point?

Perhaps you have your own, unique idea about the universe, where Earth is in it, and relative motion of its contents. Could you enlighten us with your unique insights?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You could have talked about "our" position. As for Geocentrism it is not my unique position either, it is our position among geocentrics - from Tycho Brahe to Robert Sungenis.

OK, geocentrics before Tycho Brahe were wrong or at least unprecise in being right (Ptolemy was in some places wrong) about detail. But it is the older and more usual position. I simply asked you to prove us wrong. The fact that telescopes exist doess not prove us wrong. That is where thou lostest me.

ChipArgyle

Geocentrism: Everything rotates about Earth, including stars that are millions of light years away. They rotate around Earth once a day, because we see them in the same place in the sky at night, meaning they travel at speeds of millions of light years...per hour. Even Neptune would have to orbit us faster than the speed of light. Which means relativity is incorrect and the speed of light is highly variable. That's what proves you wrong. The telescopes just help with the process.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That leaves you a task to prove the light years and the constant finite speed of light. Or to give up if you cannot. Since those are things that you use as proof, but which the telescopes are in no position to reveal directly.

ChipArgyle

The light years of distance are known and not up for debate. In a geocentrist universe, the two Mars landers we have on that planet couldn't possibly be there. And your GPS wouldn't work either.

Geocentrism is the most easily debunked of the science frauds. Even geocentrist websites are going the way of the dodo due to lack of funding because only fools believe in such bunk.

We have the Internet now. Try learning about something backed by evidence and research. It's fun!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Are known" and "not up for debate" are not arguments. Neither is poverty of geocentric websites, neither is "only fools believe in such bunk".

You did try something rational: refer to Mars landers and to GPS.

Now, four tasks: prove light years, prove finite speed of light over all of universe, prove that Mars landings and GPS (two different things to prove) could not have worked in a Geocentric Universe.

Try using rational argument for once instead of rhetoric. It's fun.

[ChipArgyle did not answer this one, as far as I can recall and now a year later:]

Justwantahover

You have to prove that the stars are smaller than the asteroids. Why don you talk with SUCH FUCKING CERTAINTY??? I'll give you certainty. You are certainly retarded. And by-the-way fuck-head, ALL the things you mentioned are proven. Why ask for proof when you have absolutely no intention of listening at all. You are just totally BLOCKED off from reality. Just talk to Hugh Ross, he's a creationists, but he's NOT geocentric. He's an astro-physicist. He knows, YOU DON'T!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I do not have to prove stars are smaller than asteroids. You have to prove they are bigger than asteroids.

"And by-the-way fuck-head, ALL the things you mentioned are proven."

According to the best satisfaction of astronomers believing the modern cosmology.

I am challenging their take on what constitutes proof.

I actually did contact Hugh Ross, as you mention it, a while ago, but got no answer.

[He also answered another one of my comments, which I repeat:]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That leaves you a task to prove the light years and the constant finite speed of light. Or to give up if you cannot. Since those are things that you use as proof, but which the telescopes are in no position to reveal directly.

Justwantahover

The only way your story could be true is that all the stars and galaxies out there are just tiny fragments that are not actually very far out and have very little mass, so earth could hold the mass with it's gravity. You are saying the stars are just very tiny things (smaller than asteroids). Can you prove that?

You are a fucking lying fuck-head, so blatant and so OBVIOUSLY WRONG, that I have no hope for you. You are fucked-in-the-head, that's all I can say>

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The only way your story could be true is that all the stars and galaxies out there ... are not actually very far out and have very little mass,"

That I am indeed saying is a distinct possibility. The contrary has not been proven so far. The proofs I have seen for contrary do not hold water.

"so earth could hold the mass with it's gravity."

Hold on a minute, I am NOT saying gravity is all that is causing all orbits.

I do believe in God and I do believe in angels.

Earth is not "holding in".

I recalled wrong about ChipArgyle:

ChipArgyle

I don't have to prove it. The math has already been done. All you have to do is research it like I did. It takes very little time.

Geocentrists are funny. Usually rooted in some form of theism, clinging to myths, a tiny little group of people denying what science has known for centuries as conspiracy theory. Tinfoil hats with crosses on them as decoration.

sadly to say

I seem not to have had the time to answer that one. On the other hand, claiming that the math having been done is equivalent to a proof having been proven, or claiming I have only to research it, and adding that "it takes very little time," does not exactly absolutely require an answer. Nor does his final quip on Geocentrics, except insofar as he is quite right that we are usually theists, that we do cling to religions he calls myths, and that, at present, we can be described as a tiny group. The rest is pretty much spoof. Even the insults of "Justwantahover" were interspersed with an argument or two, where ChipArgyle had given that up.

Arguing is less taught in school than the supposed facts. Why don't they teach logic in these schools?/HGL

Actually found a few more of Justwantahover, first connecting them to previous discussion:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

That leaves you a task to prove the light years and the constant finite speed of light. Or to give up if you cannot. Since those are things that you use as proof, but which the telescopes are in no position to reveal directly.

Justwantahover

Hey fucktard, yec fuck-head. Swing a bucket of water around you (with a hole in it) and the water flings out at the same speed as the remaining water in the bucket. So if the galaxies were all orbiting the earth at that speed, they would have all disappeared in one day (and flung out by billions of light years and we would no longer see anything). Earth does not have enough gravity to hold all that mass. Size of earth is proof of that.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As said in the other answer, I believe there is a God and I believe there are angels.

I believe that not the gravity of earth but either God or angels is doing the "holding in" in this connection.

and:

ChipArgyle

Geocentrism: Everything rotates about Earth, including stars that are millions of light years away. They rotate around Earth once a day, because we see them in the same place in the sky at night, meaning they travel at speeds of millions of light years...per hour. Even Neptune would have to orbit us faster than the speed of light. Which means relativity is incorrect and the speed of light is highly variable. That's what proves you wrong. The telescopes just help with the process.

Justwantahover

Evidence does not mean a thing to them, cos they KNOW! If they are not going to believe the obvious (like that) what's the use? They won't come to the party. The obviousness of proof is proof they won't listen. I reckon there are very few young earth creationists who would totally rule out the geocentalist model.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I reckon there are very few young earth creationists who would totally rule out the geocentalist model."

Oh, shucks ... CMI are "very few"? Or they are not like deliberately ignoring me because I am a geocentric and that does not square with their solution to the distant starlight problem or their take on what the words in Joshua chapter ten mean?

Not totally rule out the geocentric model, they could have fooled me!