Star Trek actress lends her gravitas to film promoting Geocentrism

[bilby]

If the Sun were orbiting the Earth then it would mean that Newton's law of universal gravitation and laws of motion were all wrong. That is unless the Earth were much more massive than the Sun, in which case the other planets would be orbiting the Earth too rather than orbiting the Sun. However, our observations seem to indicate that Newton’s laws are pretty damned safe. Of course there is always the chance that sweaty little angels are pushing all the bodies around under the direction of some trickster god to make it look like Newton was right.

Your argument has one fatal flaw that makes it all wrong: it's logical and it depends on evidence. Therefore it makes no sense to faith. And meaning. And when you say things like that, baby Jesus cries. Oh, and information, something about information... Ah, yes, your theory supposes an increment of information that Darwinian evolution requires. And quantum consciousness. If the Earth revolves and rotates and wobbles consciousness would get dizzy, and are you dizzy? No, right? I'm dizzy, and what does that say? Huh? It makes no sense.

Ah, yes. The Chewbacca defence.

It is just as applicable to geocentrism as any other position.

 

[DBT]

The sun is a small orb located between the moon and the stars, the stars being holes in the Dome of the sky, the very Dome upon which the Lord walks in the evenings to survey His Kingdom. All this talk of planetary exploration and moon landing are just illusions sent by God to confound the evil Atheists, who are destined to Eternal Torment in the Fires of Hell. All the True Faithful Lambs of the Righteous God know this is true.

 

[exodiasrightleg]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

 

[DBT]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Ah, but there are no distant stars. The little points of light you believe to be the 'stars' is actually the light of Heaven shining through openings in the Dome of the Sky. What you think you believe you see in terms of stars and galaxies and motion and relativity is the illusion of a fallen World, my friend.

 

[rjh01]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Ah, but there are no distant stars. The little points of light you believe to be the 'stars' is actually the light of Heaven shining through openings in the Dome of the Sky. What you think you believe you see in terms of stars and galaxies and motion and relativity is the illusion of a fallen World, my friend.

No and No.

 

[DBT]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Ah, but there are no distant stars. The little points of light you believe to be the 'stars' is actually the light of Heaven shining through openings in the Dome of the Sky. What you think you believe you see in terms of stars and galaxies and motion and relativity is the illusion of a fallen World, my friend.

No and No.

Well, you're no fun. How am I supposed to post this nonsense only to have it shot down so decisively?

 

[rjh01]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Ah, but there are no distant stars. The little points of light you believe to be the 'stars' is actually the light of Heaven shining through openings in the Dome of the Sky. What you think you believe you see in terms of stars and galaxies and motion and relativity is the illusion of a fallen World, my friend.

No and No.

Well, you're no fun. How am I supposed to post this nonsense only to have it shot down so decisively?

Yes (I am no fun) and no (do not post nonsense).

LOL.

 

[DBT]

Well, and then we can point a telescope to a distant star and see it spinning around Earth at several thousand times lightspeed.

Ah, but there are no distant stars. The little points of light you believe to be the 'stars' is actually the light of Heaven shining through openings in the Dome of the Sky. What you think you believe you see in terms of stars and galaxies and motion and relativity is the illusion of a fallen World, my friend.

No and No.

Well, you're no fun. How am I supposed to post this nonsense only to have it shot down so decisively?

Yes (I am no fun) and no (do not post nonsense).

LOL.

Was it taken seriously? Sometimes I wonder.

 

[Elixir]

What a disappointment. When I saw "Star Trek actress lends her gravitas to film" I foolishly thought there'd be a clip where she flashes one of both of her "gravitas"... I mean, I never heard them called that before, but still... it's what those Star Wars films need.

 

[Sarpedon]

Both of you have over looked the fact that the Earth spins on its axis everyday and orbits the sun (or is that the sun orbits the Earth?) every year. I asked for evidence, other than what I had listed, for the Earth going around the sun rather than the other way round and I have not got any good answers so far.

What the hell?

If any hypothesis would cause an observed phenomenon to break proved physical laws, then that hypothesis must be false. If you don't consider that evidence, you are nuts. If the earth is stationary, then the stars must move. Unless you are saying that earth might be stationary and spin, with the sun wobbling about the earth to cause the procession through zodiac signs, while the stars are stationary. This nutso theory is not really espoused by anyone. The evidence against it is the observed planetary orbits around the sun. IF the other planets are orbiting the sun, a force must make them. (gravity). IF the sun orbits the earth, a force must make it. (???) The same force can be used to explain the earth and other planets orbiting the sun. A different force needs to be introduced to explain the sun orbiting the earth WHILE STILL being orbited by the other planets. A force that affects ONLY the sun in relation to the earth, and NOT the other planets.

The evidence is plentiful. You just need a brain to perceive it.

 

[DBT]

A brain being the means of constructing a perception of the physical world, a perception of the physical world that exists in virtual form within the confines of one's brain.

 

[rjh01]

Both of you have over looked the fact that the Earth spins on its axis everyday and orbits the sun (or is that the sun orbits the Earth?) every year. I asked for evidence, other than what I had listed, for the Earth going around the sun rather than the other way round and I have not got any good answers so far.

What the hell?

If any hypothesis would cause an observed phenomenon to break proved physical laws, then that hypothesis must be false. If you don't consider that evidence, you are nuts. If the earth is stationary, then the stars must move. Unless you are saying that earth might be stationary and spin, with the sun wobbling about the earth to cause the procession through zodiac signs, while the stars are stationary. This nutso theory is not really espoused by anyone. The evidence against it is the observed planetary orbits around the sun. IF the other planets are orbiting the sun, a force must make them. (gravity). IF the sun orbits the earth, a force must make it. (???) The same force can be used to explain the earth and other planets orbiting the sun. A different force needs to be introduced to explain the sun orbiting the earth WHILE STILL being orbited by the other planets. A force that affects ONLY the sun in relation to the earth, and NOT the other planets.

The evidence is plentiful. You just need a brain to perceive it.

Please do not insult me. I have a brain. I know what the facts are. I know the earth goes round the sun. However that was not proved until the 19th century. I thought there must be more piles of evidence for this fact that what I knew. Apparently if there is you do not know it.

 

[skepticalbip]

What the hell?

If any hypothesis would cause an observed phenomenon to break proved physical laws, then that hypothesis must be false. If you don't consider that evidence, you are nuts. If the earth is stationary, then the stars must move. Unless you are saying that earth might be stationary and spin, with the sun wobbling about the earth to cause the procession through zodiac signs, while the stars are stationary. This nutso theory is not really espoused by anyone. The evidence against it is the observed planetary orbits around the sun. IF the other planets are orbiting the sun, a force must make them. (gravity). IF the sun orbits the earth, a force must make it. (???) The same force can be used to explain the earth and other planets orbiting the sun. A different force needs to be introduced to explain the sun orbiting the earth WHILE STILL being orbited by the other planets. A force that affects ONLY the sun in relation to the earth, and NOT the other planets.

The evidence is plentiful. You just need a brain to perceive it.

Please do not insult me. I have a brain. I know what the facts are. I know the earth goes round the sun. However that was not proved until the 19th century. I thought there must be more piles of evidence for this fact that what I knew. Apparently if there is you do not know it.

I think the problem may be that you are making the bad assumption that it has been PROVEN that the Earth orbits the Sun. It hasn’t. It is just that the heliocentric model best fits all observations. In fact it has been a better fit than any other model since well before the 1800s. It was the early 1800s that the argument against the heliocentric model was that we should observe stellar parallax but, since it is so small, telescopes weren’t able to observe it until better telescopes were built in the 1800s. I guess you could say that stellar parallax was a prediction of the model that was verified in the 1800s.

If someone comes up with a model that explains all observations better than the heliocentric model then the heliocentric model would end up in the ash can along with the geocentric model.