Some late summer geocentric reading courtesy of Dr Lambert Dolphin!
http://www.ldolphin.org/geocentricity/index.html

And your interpretations, thoughts, opinions on this are... ?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Same here. I checked a few of them. Geocentrism arguemements do not impress me. My co-worker and I had a lengthy discussion on the need for a Geocentrist push, the dialogue of which is not suitable for this board. Let's just say the reasoning behind it smelled an awful lot like bovine matter.

With a name like Dr. Lambert Dolphin you know somethings bound to be fishy.

Awful, awful pun.

Ridiculous mindless babble.

"We mock what we don't understand!" (Dan Akroyd in "Spies Like Us")

Yul, do you post anything but links and quotes?

Actually, a dolphin isn't a fish, it's a mamm-- Hey! Let me go! Put me down! Mooooooommmmm!

My theory is he knows how to operate the mouse - but not the keyboard.

Hence the lack of contribution - and the plethora of quotation.

__________________
bunk: Empty talk; nonsense.
de·bunk: To expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated claims of.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/eddo/images/fredheadtsp.gif

As Kilopi has repeatedly shown, geocentricity is fully compatible with GR. Dolphin's link merely lists some articles by those who go a stage further and believe in Geocentricity, on religious and philosophical grounds. Why all the ad hominems?[/b]

Yeh. Dolphins are not fishes. They are mammals.
EDYLTNATBABB(tm)

kucharek, ich habe keine Ahnung, was bedeutet diese Abkurzung. Koennten Sie bitte sie ausschreiben - fuer einen neugierigen Kerl?

:wink: Translation for non-German speakers:

kucharek, I have no idea what this abbreviation means. Could you please spell it out - for a nosy fellow?

__________________
"God is dead." - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead." - God

Every Day You Learn Something New At The BABB :wink:

Well, I assert it, but nobody really disputes it either (always exceptions I guess). On the other hand, religion and philosophy, per se, are OT, so they're probably more appropriate in the new Community forum.

What can I say? I'm anal . . .

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2010 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

At least you got thomething.

There's a fish called a dolphin as well (see the crossed dolphins on a submariners patch). Reduce confusion by calling the mammalian ones porposes. (Did I spell that right?)

A physicist at the northern tip of Scotland takes a swipe this week at the discoverers of Heliocentrism

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/...p?storyvar=454

Yes, folks, attack the ideas, not the person. Yul has shown (at least after prompting) that he will defend his posts; but in fairness, Yul, you have a history of posting and running. I think everyone needs to keep rein over their actions here.

Yul,

Your real name wouldn't happen to be Neville Jones, would it? :wink:

And (speaking as a physicist) just because you're a physicist doesn't mean you can't also be a fool. I knew people in grad school who had the craziest ideas (and this was at one of the top departments in the country). All one has to do is look at the Lenards and Shockley's of the world to see that a Ph.D. in physics, or even a Nobel, is no guarentee against being totally wrong. Yul, if I had the time (and I may dig into this yet) I could probably find several born-again Christians who believe in evolution and a non-geocentric universe. Polkinghome comes to mind (not sure I got the name right could be Polkinghorne) He's a former particle physicist who quit the field to become an Anglican priest. The point is that just because you can find one kook with a Ph.D. from God knows where who doubts Copernicus just means that physicists are as diverse as the rest of humanity. And thank God for that.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

Funny how the goalposts change rapidly. The last thing was that "real" scientists had "real" Ph.D.s from recognized institutions, rather than ICR and AiG "bought" Ph.D.s. If they are shown to be in error, however, then suddenly a Ph.D. (and even a Nobel Prize) counts for nothing, such that one can still be labeled as wacky as a fruitcake if you don't peddle current "informed opinion".

I agree with nothing in creationism Yul, but I do back you on this statement, it is unfair of them.

__________________
I am so excited about Canadians ruling the world.
- John Diefenbaker

You misunderstand me. The point is not to move the goalposts. It's simply that quoting one person with a Ph.D. as supporting geocentrism is not a valid argument in favor of it (fallacy from authority). I do stand by my statement that you'll find plenty of Christians who believe in evolution and non-geocentrism. By your standard (invalid as it is) that means that all of your Christian arguments in favor of geocentrism are suspect. Of course, if you want to move the goalposts and claim that anyone who believes in evolution and not in geocentrism cannot be a Christian, I think you'd have a few arguments from those people.

__________________
"I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind." - William Thompson, 1st Baron Lord Kelvin

"If it was so, it might be, and if it were so, it would be, but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic!" - Tweedledee

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong. - Wolfgang Pauli

My goodness they have some pretty vicious religious debates up there in the local paper. See this West Wing-inspired post, which I definitely won't be quoting on the board myself, or this one. (its an unrelated religion argument, sorry that its as inflammatory as I've suggested)

Anyway, I'm mainly passing by to point out that the guy's Christian name is Lambert, not his surname. No relation of mine there.

edit - I'd also like to point out that I'm not stressing Christian for any sly religious purpose there, which I've suddenly realised it looks like I'm doing. I merely mean first name, and I'm British so just call it Christian name without thinking about it...

No one is disputing that. We all know that geocentric, heliocentric, Jove-centric, and random-little-bit-of-dust-floating-outside-the-Local Group-centric viewpoints are all compatible with GR. It is not "a stage further". You make it sound like a reasonable extrapolation. An Egocentric viewpoint is not compatible with GR; this has been pointed out a ridiculous number of times, and yet you persist in attempting to use GR as support for a specifically Geocentric (as opposed to geocentric) viewpoint.Indeed, religious and philosophical grounds are the only ones available to support Egocentrism.Very funny. You repeatedly insult the intelligence and honesty of mainstream scientists because they don't support your religious beliefs. You liberally quote, and re-quote, extremist sites which link sciences such as cosmology and evolutionary biology to everything from Nazism to pornography. You challenged the integrity of those who refuse to accept Egocentrism, but you explicitly failed your own test! And here you are with your poor-little-me-I'm-just-trying-to-explore-the-truth routine. Again. Ahh, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth.

I used to feel sorry for those whe spent their entire lives insisting that the Universe conform to what they want. Not so much anymore.

If correct, then GR is useful because at least it permits geocentricity. But Einstein developed the concept of curved (non-Euclidean) space in part to avoid the conclusion that the universe must be finite. What is the genuine scientific evidence that space is curved? Einstein sought to do away with the possibility of a finite universe because in a finite universe there is a possibility of locating a point for which motion or rest is absolute. Relativity theory denies such a possibility.

Gravitational lenses, including microlensing, Einstein crosses, arcs, and bending of starlight. Frame dragging around a black hole (recently seen by XMM-Newton). Time dilation near gravitational masses.

I am sure there are more. Any takers?

When we are viewing a solar eclipse, the stars near the eclipsed sun are in slightly different positions than when the same stars are viewed months later in the night sky. The reason: during the eclipse, light from those stars is bent around by the sun's gravity.