Geocentrism

I respect that.

But people DO use the concept of 'suspension of disbelief' to shove their ideals into shows and to get people to actually believe them.

Of course, it works, and that proves disbelief was not properly suspended

then there's

grants

and

TENURE

What if I think everything is moving?

REVEALING QUOTES ON THE GOALS OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY
REVEALING QUOTES ON THE GOALS OF PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHOLOGY < click

I have only one question. Was the graph presented as proof of HC, TC, or neither?

Actually you're all wrong. Both the world and the universe revolve around ME!

That would be MC, and of course even tho it's the philosophy accepted by most humans, it's not true.

You are correct. I am looking at one application only, solar system astronomy. What I am suggesting is that you replace the algebra based mathematics you learned in school, with the geometric based mathematics of Euclid, as modeled in the astrolabe, and you will see that the calculations of planetary motion become simpler than they are with algebra. You require only a constant or two for each planet (which is what you need now), and a gear assembly (linear equation in rads) for each ellipitcal equation ( 2 or more variables in quadratics) for each planet. By count of variables and operations required, the astrolabe is a simpler model than the Copernican equations, if you switch to geometry. That is the core of my claim; the choice of TC vs. HC is cultural, not inherent in mathematical simplicity, as Copernicus, et al claimed. The decision to subsume solar system mechanics under calculus-based physics is a cultural choice, requiring first the decision to allow analytic geometry to replace Euclidean.

It does not prove HC, but it shows what we think is HC is could actually be stationary in a higher dimension. Hence, it proves HC wrong. But it is a fractal, and as such adjustment of parameters could produce TC, had the original poster on internet been so inclined. It would then prove TC wrong. IF this is what the solar system is, then nothing is moving; we just see it that way.

well, cultural choice or not, maybe we have been given enough evidence that may actually be observed, and written declarations by God to reach a little more than subjective cultural choice.

in other words, how far do we go with theoretical calculations?
right forward to today's computer modeling? < who is in charge of the info which goes into the models?
the deck is stacked.....(more on that later).

Al Gore [an inconvenient spoof] and Co. got busted for the HOCKEY STICK/'Hide The Decline' fiasco.
they were and are so bent on convincing us of overpopulation [global warming] they lied and continue to do so.

Hide the decline
The indispensable A-Z in the climate debate
Hide the decline - Latest News (hidethedecline) < click

CO2 is killing us?
breathing out is a sin?
oh.....CARBON TAXES

who can we trust? Mr. Rockefeller, Carnegie and friends? the CFR?

Club of Rome
In 1991, the Club published The First Global Revolution.[5] According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, "either a real one or else one invented for the purpose."[6] Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[6] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[7]

Club of Rome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < click

oh right. same guys who love China's forced abortion policy.

apparently they can't be trusted.



Genesis 1:7
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

And divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; the lower part of it, the atmosphere above, which are the clouds full of water, from whence rain descends upon the earth; and which divided between them and those that were left on the earth, and so under it, not yet gathered into one place; as it now does between the clouds of heaven and the waters of the sea. Though Mr. Gregory (a) is of opinion, that an abyss of waters above the most supreme orb is here meant; or a great deep between the heavens and the heaven of heavens, where, as in storehouses, the depth is laid up; and God has his treasures of snow, hail, and rain, and from whence he brought out the waters which drowned the world at the universal deluge. Others suppose the waters above to be the crystalline heaven, which for its clearness resembles water; and which Milton (b) calls the "crystalline ocean"...
Gill


Genesis 1:8
And God called the firmament Heaven.

Genesis 1:14
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

Genesis 1:15
And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.

Genesis 1:16
And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

Genesis 1:17
And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,

"Barbour and Bertotti proved that a large hollow sphere (representing the distant star fields) rotating around a small solid sphere inside (modeling the Earth) produced exactly the same pattern of Coriolis and centrifugal forces that are claimed as proof of Earth's spinning in space. If the hollow shell of matter accelerates or rotates, any object inside the shell will tend to be carried along with the acceleration or rotation to some extent. But they note this all-important fact: An object at the center of the hollow sphere will not be affected by the inertial forces. The space around the Earth will exhibit the inertial effects of the distant sphere, but not the Earth itself, if it is centrally located.

From Mach's principle we can conclude that inertia is a universal property, like gravity. But in Mach's principle the conventional interpretation of distant masses as causing inertial effects around the Earth is too restrictive. The cause of inertia could also logically be the properties of the space around each object, modified by the presence of the mass in or around that space. In other words the ether/firmament may be the source of inertia, which causes the gravity and inertial effects on bodies embedded in the ether. The ether's properties are changed by the masses (via feedback), but it is the ether that is the primary or first cause. Linear inertia is the resistance to motion of objects moving linearly caused by the ether drag."

Galileo was Wrong
Dr. Robert Sungenis
Dr. Robert Bennett

Galileo Was Wrong < click

Earth-is-stationary Proofs

Earth-is-stationary proofs: Earth does not rotate about its axis < click

A geostationary satellite is one that hovers exactly above the earth. They only stay up if they are 26,200 or so miles from the center of the earth, and only if they are over the equator. Higher than that, lower than that, they either sail off into space or come crashing down, unless you spend a lot of fuel to make them go some other way. Not over the equator, they make a figure 8. In HC, it must travel 1.91 miles per second to do that. In TC, can anyone explain what holds it up, only if it is exactly that height, and what causes the figure 8 behavior if it is not over the equator?

If anyone claims they don't exist, turn off your cell phone, internet, and satellite TV, because those are not working, if these satellites are not up there.

"There was mention of a certain astrologer who wanted to prove that the earth moves and not the sky, the sun, and the moon. This would be as if somebody were riding on a cart or in a ship and imagined that he was standing still while the earth and the trees were moving.

So it goes now. Whoever wants to be clever must agree with nothing that others esteem. He must do something of his own. This is what that fellow does who wishes to turn the whole of astronomy upside down. Even in these things that are thrown into disorder I believe the Holy Scriptures, for Joshua commanded the sun to stand still and not the earth [Jos. 10:12].&#8221;
Martin Luther



"I have no doubt...from the established alternations of days and nights, that the course and revolutions of the sun, and moon, and stars, are regulated by the marvellous wisdom of God."
John Calvin

i'll try to post what i can on that Ken.

meanwhile:

The Geocentric Model is STILL Used to Teach Aeronautics

"I once heard that one military pilot instructor routinely told his new students something like this, "For this class, forget about everything that you've learned about the earth going around the sun." Well, today, Tuesday, 2-24-09 at about 8 am I was flipping through an encyclopedia* and the following graphic caught my eye. In it, the instructor at the United States Military Academy is using an ARMILLARY SPHERE to teach his class.

Many people may have never heard of an armillary sphere. It is a geocentric model of the heavens. I found out about it while browsing through a book by Jan Amos Comenius, 17th century educator extraordinaire. I purchased a brass armillary sphere to boldly sit on my shelf. The earth sits at the center of the heavens immovable, the sun circuits the earth through the ecliptic, and the fixed stars sit on a celestial sphere in diurnal (daily) rotation about the earth.

As I understand it, a number of heliocentrists (e.g., astronomers) continue to use this geocentric model because it is "useful". Actually, it is the truth and THAT is why it makes sense to the mind--that "apparent" motion of the sun is "actual".

I scanned in the picture. The caption for the picture reads as follows:

Left: An instructor uses a celestial-terrestial sphere in teaching earth, space, and graphic sciences.

[You'll have to cursor down to see the graphic.]..."

The Geocentric Model is STILL Used to Teach Aeronautics < click

^ PHOTO ^
oopsie Helios

“Often the simplest of observations will have the most profound consequences. It has long been a cornerstone of modern science, to say nothing of man’s cosmic outlook, that the Earth attends a modest star that shines in an undistinguished part of a run-of-the-mill galaxy. Life arose spontaneously and man evolved on this miscellaneous clump of matter and now directs his own destiny without outside help. This cosmic model is supported by the Big-Bang and Expanding Universe concepts, which in turn are buttressed by the simple observation that astronomers see redshifts wherever they look. These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos. His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own.”

Paul C. W. Davies
Editor, Nature Magazine

Map reveals strange cosmos

By Dr David Whitehouse
BBC News Online science editor

The best map yet of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation - the so-called echo of the Big Bang - shows the Universe may not be the same in all directions.

The image has been produced from data collected by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (Map), which was launched in 2001.

"It is a photo of the most distant thing we can see; our best photo yet," said Dr Max Tegmark, of the University of Pennsylvania, US, who processed the image.

Dr Tegmark and colleagues present the CMB as a sphere: "The entire observable Universe is inside this sphere, with us at the centre of it."...

...Having produced the cleanest map of the CMB yet, Dr Tegmark displayed it in an unusual manner. Instead of a flat projection on a computer screen, he showed the data as ripples on a sphere - "after all the CMB comes from a sphere", he says.

"Space continues outside the sphere but this opaque glowing wall of hydrogen plasma hides it from our view. If we could only see another 380,000 light-years we would be able to see the beginning of the Universe," he told BBC News Online.

Looking for evidence

And he added: "We found something very bizarre; there is some extra, so far unexplained structure in the CMB.

"We had expected that the microwave background would be truly isotropic, with no preferred direction in space but that may not be the case."

Looking at the symmetry of the CMB - measures technically called its octopole and quadrupole components - the researchers uncovered a curious pattern.

They had expected to see no pattern at all but what they saw was anything but random.

"The octopole and quadrupole components are arranged in a straight line across the sky, along a kind of cosmic equator. That's weird.

"We don't think this is due to foreground contamination," Dr Tegmark said. "It could be telling us something about the shape of space on the largest scales. We did not expect this and we cannot yet explain it."

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Map reveals strange cosmos < click

oopsie Helios

"It is shown that the cosmological interpretation of the red shift in the spectra of quasars leads to yet another paradoxical result: namely, that the Earth is the center of the Universe."

&#8220;The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.&#8221;

Y. P. Varshni, &#8220;The Red Shift Hypothesis for Quasars: Is the Earth the Center of the Universe?&#8221; Astrophysics and Space Science 43 (1): 3 (1976).

~



Copernicus




Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements&#8212;surely you know!
Job 38:4-5

Copernicus


Copernicus' system was attractive to him more for philosophical reasons than scientific ones, and his disregard for observations is made clear by the simple instruments in his study.
Fred Hoyle