Geocentrism

[Graybeard]

That's my understanding, yeah.

so what happens when the suns light shines on the moon......nothing?....does the moon not reflect the suns light?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

so what happens when the suns light shines on the moon......nothing?....does the moon not reflect the suns light?

I'm not sure. I suppose the moon might reflect sunlight a bit. But I think the light we see from the moon is its own, not some second hand light initially from the sun. That's why moonlight is cold and white, but sunlight is warm and yellow.

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

The moon revolves about its axis, but only half of it gives light, resulting in the different phases.

this is incorrect of course...the same part of the moon faces earth regardless of the phase...so the phases cannot be a matter of the lit part rotating away from us...

you can observe this yourself...note the light and darker areas on the full moon...then watch as those light and darker areas stay in the same place as the moon cycles through its phases...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I'm not sure. I suppose the moon might reflect sunlight a bit. But I think the light we see from the moon is its own, not some second hand light initially from the sun. That's why moonlight is cold and white, but sunlight is warm and yellow.

and when the earth is exactly between the sun and the moon...then a dark area that just happens to be the exact shape and size of the earth's shadow at that distance magically appears and moves across the moon at a speed that just happens to be the exact speed at which the moon would pass through a shadow of the earth cast by the sun?

you do look at the moon sometimes don't you?

 

[Graybeard]

I'm not sure. I suppose the moon might reflect sunlight a bit. But I think the light we see from the moon is its own, not some second hand light initially from the sun. That's why moonlight is cold and white, but sunlight is warm and yellow.

I was going to ask you...what about a Luna eclipse as RBS mentioned?

this is incorrect of course...the same part of the moon faces earth regardless of the phase...so the phases cannot be a matter of the lit part rotating away from us...

you can observe this yourself...note the light and darker areas on the full moon...then watch as those light and darker areas stay in the same place as the moon cycles through its phases...

and when the earth is exactly between the sun and the moon...then a dark area that just happens to be the exact shape and size of the earth's shadow at that distance magically appears and moves across the moon at a speed that just happens to be the exact speed at which the moon would pass through a shadow of the earth cast by the sun?

you do look at the moon sometimes don't you?

 

[posthuman]

you guys think Jerusalem is the center of the earth too? the whole earth literally & physically revolves around it?

because,

God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.
(Psalm 46:5)


we can get even more specific than that --

My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.
He will not suffer thy foot to be moved: he that keepeth thee will not slumber.
(Psalm 21:2-3)

.. so David's foot is actually the center of the universe?

or do you think the bible in fact uses figurative language sometimes?

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

this is incorrect of course...the same part of the moon faces earth regardless of the phase...so the phases cannot be a matter of the lit part rotating away from us...

you can observe this yourself...note the light and darker areas on the full moon...then watch as those light and darker areas stay in the same place as the moon cycles through its phases...

I have read this, but can't verify if true. Probably some large, close up shots of the moon taken consecutively over a month could help prove/disprove it. Unfortunately, currently outside my technological ability.

and when the earth is exactly between the sun and the moon...then a dark area that just happens to be the exact shape and size of the earth's shadow at that distance magically appears and moves across the moon at a speed that just happens to be the exact speed at which the moon would pass through a shadow of the earth cast by the sun?

you do look at the moon sometimes don't you?

So by this explanation, the moon could never be eclipsed at the same time the sun has not set?

Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight | Eclipse Senelion | Moon & Sun Both Visible During an Eclipse | Space.com

"For most places in the United States and Canada, there will be a chance to observe an unusual effect, one that celestial geometry seems to dictate can't happen. The little-used name for this effect is a "selenelion" (or "selenehelion") and occurs when both the sun and the eclipsed moon can be seen at the same time."

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

I have read this, but can't verify if true. Probably some large, close up shots of the moon taken consecutively over a month could help prove/disprove it. Unfortunately, currently outside my technological ability.

So by this explanation, the moon could never be eclipsed at the same time the sun has not set?

Saturday's Lunar Eclipse Will Include 'Impossible' Sight | Eclipse Senelion | Moon & Sun Both Visible During an Eclipse | Space.com

"For most places in the United States and Canada, there will be a chance to observe an unusual effect, one that celestial geometry seems to dictate can't happen. The little-used name for this effect is a "selenelion" (or "selenehelion") and occurs when both the sun and the eclipsed moon can be seen at the same time."

you can verify that the moon keeps the same side facing the earth without close up photography...just look at the moon for a month...you can see plenty of detail on the moon without magnification...

you have looked at the moon before haven't you?

and evidently you didn't finish reading that article you quoted...because it goes on to explain exactly why that 'impossible' eclipse is actually possible...it is because of atmospheric refraction...

 

[posthuman]

I have read this, but can't verify if true. Probably some large, close up shots of the moon taken consecutively over a month could help prove/disprove it. Unfortunately, currently outside my technological ability.

i used to wonder why God put such huge, recognizable features like the Mares on the surface of the moon, easily visible from the surface of the earth with the naked eye of all mankind both in the day time and the night.

now i know.

 

[danschance]

Just do this equation for me:
(2xy)+8(yz)=
y=4
z=7

(I just need to know if you are capable of 'higher' thought)

The funny part of this post is that the equation is unsolvable because it is not equal to anything. The term X is unknown and the the equation is not defined as being equal to anything. So this equation can not be solved by anyone.

 

[danschance]

So you claim a larger body orbits a smaller celestial body.
- Never happened, never will - (it violates at least two of Newton's Laws)

This post is on to something. Two planets of equal mass can revolve around each other. However the mass of the sun is 333,000 times greater than the mass of earth. So the earth would appear to orbit around the sun and the sun would have a very tiny imperceptible wobble as the earth rotated around it. This means the geocentric theory is false.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

you can verify that the moon keeps the same side facing the earth without close up photography...just look at the moon for a month...you can see plenty of detail on the moon without magnification...

It looks different to me. I'm not saying totally different (i.e. somewhat familiar), but hence my preference for detailed close up shots to compare and see what is actually happening. Even if the same face is always directed to the Earth as claimed, I don't think this rules out an external translucent shell with an inner rotating light.

and evidently you didn't finish reading that article you quoted...because it goes on to explain exactly why that 'impossible' eclipse is actually possible...it is because of atmospheric refraction...

My point in quoting the article was that if moonlight is caused by the sun reflecting light onto the moon, then to Earth, the sun should not be visible during a lunar eclipse. The fact that the sun is visible during some lunar eclipses is confirmed even by those who believe the moon's phases are caused by the Earth's shadow. As the sun is visible on these occasions, another theory must be invoked by believers to sustain the initial one, similar to what is done to sustain the theory of evolution. Such evidence encourages me to reject outright the theory that moonlight is from the sun, rather than to make excuses and additional theories to extend its use.

i used to wonder why God put such huge, recognizable features like the Mares on the surface of the moon, easily visible from the surface of the earth with the naked eye of all mankind both in the day time and the night.

now i know.

I think God does all things for a reason. He has literally thought of everything.

The funny part of this post is that the equation is unsolvable because it is not equal to anything. The term X is unknown and the the equation is not defined as being equal to anything. So this equation can not be solved by anyone.

I think the equation Rick finally gave was this:

"(2 x y)+8(yz)= 216

if y is 4
and Z is 7"

Then x must equal -1.

This post is on to something. Two planets of equal mass can revolve around each other. However the mass of the sun is 333,000 times greater than the mass of earth. So the earth would appear to orbit around the sun and the sun would have a very tiny imperceptible wobble as the earth rotated around it. This means the geocentric theory is false.

If the heliocentric theory were true, in G. B. Airy's experiment of 1871, the water filled telescope would have needed tilting moreso than the air-filled telescope, to see the light of the stars through a medium with a slower speed of light (water). As both telescopes required the same angle, this experiment proved that it is the stars that move, rather than the Earth. The speed of light in the telescope medium is of no consequence, because the Earth is stationary - if the Earth were moving, the telescope angle would need to be adjusted based on the telescope medium.

With this in mind, we can then confidently say that either the theory of gravity as it applies to the Heavenly bodies is incorrect, or that the mass of the sun is not 333, 000 times the mass of the Earth (or in my view, probably both).

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

It looks different to me. I'm not saying totally different (i.e. somewhat familiar), but hence my preference for detailed close up shots to compare and see what is actually happening. Even if the same face is always directed to the Earth as claimed, I don't think this rules out an external translucent shell with an inner rotating light.

My point in quoting the article was that if moonlight is caused by the sun reflecting light onto the moon, then to Earth, the sun should not be visible during a lunar eclipse. The fact that the sun is visible during some lunar eclipses is confirmed even by those who believe the moon's phases are caused by the Earth's shadow. As the sun is visible on these occasions, another theory must be invoked by believers to sustain the initial one, similar to what is done to sustain the theory of evolution. Such evidence encourages me to reject outright the theory that moonlight is from the sun, rather than to make excuses and additional theories to extend its use.

anyone who has looked at the moon more than once knows that the moon's features remain the same regardless of the phase...this is not something that requires detailed photography... furthermore even during a total lunar eclipse you can -still- see the usual full moon features on the moon during the time when the moon appears reddish...so obviously the moon's orientation is not changing with the phase...

your ridiculous notion of an 'external translucent shell with an inner rotating light' is also ruled out by simple observation... through binoculars and even to a limited extent with just your eyes you can see the sun shadows of many features on the moon such as mountains and crater rims...those shadows are completely dark and they have sharp edges...which are absolutely not the kinds of shadows you would get from a 'translucent shell' where some light could pass through...

also i should point out that along the lunar 'terminator'...the boundary between the light and dark parts at any given time...you can actually see small fully lit features in the dark part very close to the terminator...if not with just your eyes then certainly with binoculars... and this cannot be explained by any model you have suggested so far...and in fact it can only be explained as the result of the moon's light being reflected sunlight... those small fully lit features in the dark part of the moon are mountains and crater rims high enough in altitude that the sun has already risen over the horizon and illuminated them...

atmospheric refraction was not an 'excuse' made to sustain the theory that the moon's light is reflected sunlight...it is exactly the opposite actually...that special eclipse was -predicted ahead of time- as a specific result of the fact of atmospheric refraction... it is not an explanation invented to save a theory from an unexpected result...it was a -previously known- fact that led the astronomers to -expect- that result...an expectation that was then confirmed by observation...

finally it is incredibly hypocritical of you to accuse anyone of making 'excuses' and 'additional theories' to save a theory they have become attached to...because that is -exactly- what you did in the very same post...when you -invented- an 'external translucent shell with an inner rotating light' simply to save your 'self illuminating moon' notion from the observations that contradict it...

 

[RachelBibleStudent]

If the heliocentric theory were true, in G. B. Airy's experiment of 1871, the water filled telescope would have needed tilting moreso than the air-filled telescope, to see the light of the stars through a medium with a slower speed of light (water). As both telescopes required the same angle, this experiment proved that it is the stars that move, rather than the Earth. The speed of light in the telescope medium is of no consequence, because the Earth is stationary - if the Earth were moving, the telescope angle would need to be adjusted based on the telescope medium.

airy's experiment actually is not capable of distinguishing between a rotating earth or moving stars...because moving stars would produce the same effect as this reasoning would expect from a moving earth...namely the need for adjusting the angle of the telescope based on what is inside it...

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

airy's experiment actually is not capable of distinguishing between a rotating earth or moving stars...because moving stars would produce the same effect as this reasoning would expect from a moving earth...namely the need for adjusting the angle of the telescope based on what is inside it...

Have a read of the link and once you understand (from the above comment, you clearly don't), feel free to make another attempt at refutation.

Airy's experiment

 

[ddallen]

Have a read of the link and once you understand (from the above comment, you clearly don't), feel free to make another attempt at refutation.

Airy's experiment

Have you read Airys paper or any of the papers mentioned on the website. They are dealing with aether and how the motion of the earth would affect it. They all start with the premise that the earth moves. I have being trying to find anything I can on this Neville Jones - H claims to be a physicist, but I can find no peer reviewed articles from him - he also postulates that JFK was killed by Jackie O and the holocaust never happened.

As for Airys paper - he wrote this paper to refute the findings of Prof. Klinkerfues and the undulatory theory of light.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Have you read Airys paper

Nope.

or any of the papers mentioned on the website.

I'm not sure the website mentions any papers... I just posted a simple, one-page link?

They are dealing with aether and how the motion of the earth would affect it. They all start with the premise that the earth moves.

Airy's experiment is sometimes referred to as "Airy's failure", as the experiment's goal was to prove the Earth moving, but instead proved it still.

I have being trying to find anything I can on this Neville Jones - H claims to be a physicist, but I can find no peer reviewed articles from him

Why does it matter whether Neville Jones - H (or anyone else) is a physicist or not, and why does it matter if you can't find any peer reviewed articles from him? Do you believe certain groups should have a monopoly on truth?

- he also postulates that JFK was killed by Jackie O

Well, JFK was certainly killed by somebody.

and the holocaust never happened.

This is a common slander, but usually, the accused is simply questioning faulty historical accounts or (horror of horrors) asking for evidence of certain extraordinary claims. Remember the boy who cried wolf? Either way, even if there is someone out there who denies any and every alleged holocaust, it doesn't automatically render all their words false.

As for Airys paper - he wrote this paper to refute the findings of Prof. Klinkerfues and the undulatory theory of light.

The experiment as I understand was to prove the Earth's motion. Either way, the result of the experiment was to prove the Earth motionless.

I don't really like posting videos, but this one might help you understand how Airy's experiment proves the Earth motionless better than the previous link.

GEOCENTRICITY - An animated explanation of "Airy's Failure" experiment. - YouTube

 

[posthuman]

ok buddy. if you haven't read Airy's paper,
what makes you think you can argue from it?

Airy himself wasn't trying to prove the earth moves or not. he knew the earth moved. he was trying to show that there was an aether. have a look at the man's actual work before you put words in his mouth. he would have laughed at you directly if you told him the earth was stationary. he would may have thrown you out of his lab if you told him that's what his experiment was designed to show. the only way you can argue that Airy not seeing any effect of aether-drag = the earth isn't moving is assuming that there is an aether. there's not. multitudes of experiments have shown that. even if there was, Airy's experiment wasn't designed to say anything about the motion or non-motion of the earth. it assumed that the earth was rotating and revolving -- because multitudes of experiments prior to Airy's time had clearly ​show that.

how about you stop posting and quoting whack-job websites and videos, get down to business, and either do some actual science or read the papers of people who actually do it themselves.

until then, you're blowing smoke. the same smoke that person after person has been sucked into this thread by, clearly refuted you, and their clear and true arguments been completely ignored by you.

you're not on a mission from God to show us the true nature of the universe, that's clear at this point. you're on a mission to salvage your own pride.

it's OK to be wrong about physics, bro. don't feel bad. just confess it.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

ok buddy. if you haven't read Airy's paper,
what makes you think you can argue from it?

You don't need to read a work to understand what it says. I don't need to have read "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" to understand what Darwin was on about.

Airy himself wasn't trying to prove the earth moves or not. he knew the earth moved. he was trying to show that there was an aether.

It doesn't matter so much what he was trying to prove - what matters is what he proved.

have a look at the man's actual work before you put words in his mouth. he would have laughed at you directly if you told him the earth was stationary. he would may have thrown you out of his lab if you told him that's what his experiment was designed to show.

The truth can sometimes have that effect on people.

the only way you can argue that Airy not seeing any effect of aether-drag = the earth isn't moving is assuming that there is an aether. there's not.

Lol. Of course there is an aether. The greatest minds of the past century have all accepted there is obviously an aether. If there is no aether, how do light waves travel in a vacuum? Please don't resort to self contradictory theories from that shill Einstein, who never invented anything of consequence.

multitudes of experiments have shown that.

This is false.

even if there was, Airy's experiment wasn't designed to say anything about the motion or non-motion of the earth. it assumed that the earth was rotating and revolving -- because multitudes of experiments prior to Airy's time had clearly ​show that.

No experiment has proved the Earth is rotating or revolving, even to this day. Much less so in Airy's time.

how about you stop posting and quoting whack-job websites and videos, get down to business, and either do some actual science or read the papers of people who actually do it themselves.

It doesn't take much to realise the Earth is stationary. Those so-called "whack-job" websites and videos prove it, if you care to look. Your choice if not - I'm sure you know what they say about horses and water.

until then, you're blowing smoke. the same smoke that person after person has been sucked into this thread by, clearly refuted you, and their clear and true arguments been completely ignored by you.

I'm not sure I have ignored any "clear and true" arguments. Perhaps the dubious interpretations and excuses for the existence of evidence clearly disproving heliocentrism, but certainly not any "clear and true" arguments.

you're not on a mission from God to show us the true nature of the universe, that's clear at this point. you're on a mission to salvage your own pride.

it's OK to be wrong about physics, bro. don't feel bad. just confess it.

Lol. I've been wrong about many things before. But I'd sooner be right than be popular. I think this alone proves this is not a mission to salvage my own pride. The proud would rather be wrong and have everyone think they are right, than be right and have everyone think they are wrong.

 

[RickyZ]

You don't need to read a work to understand what it says.

Wow, sounds like Nancy Pelosi saying "we need to vote on Obamneycare in order to see what's in it".

So I don't need to read the Bible to know whats in it?

I'll second a previous comment, don't teach from works you haven't read.

Jus' sayin'