"We can't feel our motion through space; nor has any experiment ever proved that the earth actually is in motion' ("The Universe & Dr Einstein" p73, Lincoln Barnett 1959). Why should one of Albert's chief disciples write this if Mother Gea is not only relatively but absolutely in motion? Where's the incontestable evidence? After all, declaring that a stationary earth is unacceptable is not the same as authenticating it to be on the move!

We've gone over this before on this board. Basically, there is no scientific evidence for movement or not. To believe one or the other to the exclusion of all else is non-scientific, a religious point of view. That discussion is better held somewhere else.

Welcome Dunash. Maybe he told this in the context of the Relativity only.

To the little extent of my knowledge, the question of the absolutes are better addressed with the Newtonian approach, so the expression "absolutely in motion" seems a little displaced amidst relativistic jargon. But maybe I'm wrong.

For Earth's movement? I'm personally satisfied with things like anual aberration, parallax and so on.

Perhaps in 1959 the statement was true.

From: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/bkg3k.html

"Anisotropy of 3K Background
An anisotropy of about 0.1% exists in the cosmic microwave background radiation which is attributed to a Doppler shift caused by the motion of the solar system through the radiation. This anisotropy indicates motion at a velocity of about 370 km/sec relative to a "comoving observer", one who rides along with the general expansion of the universe."

Careful there. Attributed??

Dunash--

I ahev posted this before, and evidently I must again. Here is exactly why geocentrism is wrong as you advocate it.

Geocentrism, as advocated by creationists or
other religiously fundamental people, is certainly wrong.
How, you may ask? What is going on is that you can do a change of reference
frame to a geocentric one, and by relativity the math must still work out.
I readily admit that. I do not understand all the math involved, but I
will take it for granted that it works out, and that physically,
geocentrism is just as valid as, say, heliocentrism.

But note
the words "just as valid". Also, by relativity, it cannot
be any *more* valid; geocentrism is just another change of frame
(although to a non-inertial one).

What geocentrists are saying is
that geocentrism is the one, true frame. Creationists must say that
because that is what is says in the bible.Now pay attention here,
because this is the important bit: to say geocentrism isn't wrong, you
have to accept the premise that any frame of reference is just as valid as
any other. But to claim that geocentrism is correct, you have to
ignore that very same premise.

Geocentrism as the One True Way is
therefore self-contradictory. It doesn't work.

Maybe its not possible for some human's
to precieve motion, i'll say i am very
convinced that if its where to STOP
its absence would shure be noticable.
Also i site the heavy pendulem
swinging on a long wire that forms a circle
as the Earth spins. as an example of
motion precieved. and that of a drunk person
in a room that seams to spin. Preception,
deceived, probably, but maybe rooms do spin
anyway ther must be a mechanism that causes

it. So I VOTE FOR [X] yes

now what was the D`bait about again?

Sure. Currently, that best guess at a mechanism is general relativity. GR allows us to use any reference frame though, including an earth-fixed one, and the physics (and experiments!) still works out.

Wrap your mind around that, and you understand the universe.