Heliocentrism Vs. Geocentrism

[BullnaChinaShop]

[quote name='dabukthumpa' date='Sep 3 2004, 12:16 PM'] but there is no way to prove that the Sun has the dominate gravitaional force in the universe. We must take into account the TOTAL amount of gravitational force that exists in the universe - Geocentrists do not accept the notion that the Sun is the dominate gravitational force in the entire universe - especially when your dealing with a Goecentric model with the earth being at center Mass in the universe - thus making everything else revolve around it - including the Sun. [/quote]
And there is no way to prove that the Earth is at the center of mass of the universe. Even if it is the Earth still goes around the Sun. That is why I have been arguing that neither theory makes any sense outside of the bounds of the solar sytem.

[dabukthumpa]

"current science has much evidence that there is a center to the universe, and that earth just happens to be at or near that point. Let me cite several examples.

1) In the book The Biggest Bangs: The Mystery of Gamma-Ray Bursts, Jonathan I. Katz, professor of physics at Washington University, states in his chapter titled, The Copernican Dilemma:


The uniform distribution of burst arrival directions tells us that the distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources in space is a sphere or spherical shell, with us at the center (some other extremely contrived and implausible distributions are also possible). But Copernicus taught us that we are not in a special preferred position in the universe...
Later, after citing some experiments designed to answer the "Copernican dilemma," the author admits:


No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge. Beyond this edge the density of burst sources decreases to insignificance.
2) In 1975, astrophysicist J. P Varshni stunned astronomers with his conclusive evidence that earth was in the center of the universe: Varshni writes:


...the quasars in the 57 groups...are arranged on 57 spherical shells with the Earth as the center....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. 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 (1976, Astrophysics and Space Science, 43:3).
Varshni calculated the odds against an arrangement of 57 concentric spheres of quasars around the earth to be 3 x 10^86 to 1. Later, the science community tried to get Varshni to change his mind about the results, and they were partly successful, since Varshni tried to attribute the Quasar distribution to laser phenomenon rather than red shift, but the damage to the scientific community had already been done. After Varshni's work, astronomers found over 2000 quasars, and none of them altered Varshni's original results. In fact, astronomers refer to it as the "quasar distribution problem."

3) Other references to the same type of discoveries of concentric spheres of both quasars and galactic redshifts, are Tifft and Cocke writing of this phenomenon in Sky and Telescope, 73:19, in 1987 in the article "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts," as well as in New Scientist of June 22, 1985, in the article "Galaxy Redshifts Come in Clumps." Burbidge wrote about the same phenomenon in Mercury in the article "Quasars in the Balance," 17:136 in 1988. Halton Arp has provided the most information in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies." He and Burbidge wrote of their work in Physics Today, 37:17 in 1984 in the article "Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On."

4) In 1963, Pensias and Wilson discovered the Cosmic Background Radiation (CBR), but the evidence was most peculiar with current theories of the universe, since they found that the 2.7 Kelvin degrees of the CBR was radially uniform in all directions in space, which would naturally make earth the preferred center."

(EWTN's Question and Answer Board)

This is facts of RECENT Scientific Nerds who support the Geocentric System.

[geo]

Geo-centrism baby, it all goes around me.

-geo

[BullnaChinaShop]

The geometric center of the universe does not nessecarily mean the center of mass of the universe.

[dabukthumpa]

Well the theories do make sense. I mean on both sides you have very very smart men - who do make sense. I would just like to say that under the current evidence out there today in the Science field - Geocentrism makes more sense. Also, it coincides more precisely Theologically and biblically speaking.

Lastly, there is ample evidence to show the Earth as being at Center Mass in the Universe. Obviously, it can be rejected - but I think the evidence is most covincing however.