When is the Principle movie going to be released?

[Habitual_Ritual]

Also, my point was that those without a basic grasp of even the fundamentals of the natural sciences-i.e. Sungenis, DeLano-don't have any ability to say they can prove geocentrism.

You do release the Copernican principle is a 400+ year old ideological theory right?

So with regard the Planck probe discoveries related to the spread of cosmological heat, why don't you just hit us up with one of your own scientific thoughts? Just one.

It is interesting to note that the Copernican principle has to be dropped by scientists when evaluating observed scientific results:

Some cosmologists and theoretical physicists design models lacking the Cosmological or Copernican principles, to constrain the valid values of observational results, to address specific known issues.

A prominent example in this context is the observed accelerating universe and the cosmological constant issue. An alternative proposal to dark energy is that the universe is much more inhomogeneous than currently assumed, and specifically that we are in an extremely large low-density void.[32] To match observations we would have to be very close to the centre of this void, immediately contradicting the Copernican principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Modern_tests

[Habitual_Ritual]

they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.

Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?

[GloriaPatri]

they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.

Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?

Simple, they've never studied physics. That they've never studied even the basics of the field shows that they are incapable of proposing their own pseudoscientific theories contrary to all empirical evidence.

Furthermore, geocentrism violates basic Newtonian Mechanics. The gravitational force experienced in a two-body system (Earth and Sun) is defined by F=[G(Ms)(Me)]/(r^2). We likewise know that F=(mass)(accel). Thus the acceleration of the Sun caused by the gravitational force is G*Me/r^2, while that experienced by the Earth is G*Ms/r^2. Since the mass of the Sun, Ms, far exceeds that of Earth, Me, the acceleration of the Earth is far greater than that of the Sun. Now, acceleration can be defined as a change in direction for a moving objects, such as when an object moves in a circular path. Consequently it is the Earth that experiences the greater movement, not the Sun.

Not only that, but geocentrism is completely incapable of explaining stellar parallax, nor can it explain the natural cause of epicycles.

[Habitual_Ritual]

Simple, they've never studied physics.

Which accredited body furnished you with a structural engineering degree?

The 'Theory' of the Copernican principle rests on two unproven assumptions, namely the homogeneity and isotropic nature of the universe. It is perfectly valid to propose new theories considering the old ones are unprovable.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, various observed aspects of the universe require the Copernican principle to abandoned. How do you square this?

[Aquila]

Hint: Lagrange points.

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/dr-tom-bridgman-debunks-geocentrism/

DeLano and Sungenis can't explain why the measured locations of Lagrange points are right where heliocentrism and Newtonian mechanics predicts them to be.....Their complete failure to provide the calculations of L points based on a geocentric system exposes Sungenis and DeLano as the frauds that they are.

[Aquila]

http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/as-the-universe-turns/

[Aquila]

they simply don't have the intellectual tools to accomplish such a task.

Can you qualify this statement with empirical evidence indicating their intellectual inferiority and lack of comprehension skills ?

They have absolutely no training in physics or math. Sungenis is a religion major, while Delano is a high school dropout.

[Aquila]

Also, my point was that those without a basic grasp of even the fundamentals of the natural sciences-i.e. Sungenis, DeLano-don't have any ability to say they can prove geocentrism.

You do release the Copernican principle is a 400+ year old ideological theory right?

So with regard the Planck probe discoveries related to the spread of cosmological heat, why don't you just hit us up with one of your own scientific thoughts? Just one.

It is interesting to note that the Copernican principle has to be dropped by scientists when evaluating observed scientific results:

Some cosmologists and theoretical physicists design models lacking the Cosmological or Copernican principles, to constrain the valid values of observational results, to address specific known issues.

A prominent example in this context is the observed accelerating universe and the cosmological constant issue. An alternative proposal to dark energy is that the universe is much more inhomogeneous than currently assumed, and specifically that we are in an extremely large low-density void.[32] To match observations we would have to be very close to the centre of this void, immediately contradicting the Copernican principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle#Modern_tests

I assume you are referring to CMB. CMB poses problems for the BBT, but doesn't really pose a threat to heliocentrism.

As for Copernicanism being "ideological"....Measurements of the Lagrange points, as well as other proofs, have consistently agreed with a heliocentric system. Sungenis and Delano can't even produce basic mathematical calculations of Lagrange points, or explain how the gravitational effects of distant star somehow "cancel" out the massively larger gravitational mass of the sun. It is in fact Geocentrism, which has no scientific basis, that is ideological.

Personally I believe that Geocentrism is being used to discredit attacks on non-mainstream science that actually have a scientific basis, like intelligent design. Sungenis and Delano specifically tie Geocentrism to ID. The difference is that ID actually has a scientific basis (as well as a theological one) while Geocentrism does not. Ergo, when someone tries to bring up ID, he/she can be smeared with "Oh, and I'll bet you're a Geocentrist too!". Sungenis and Delano are muddying the water with their pseudoscientific fantasies.

[Geremia]

they've never studied physics.

That's a lie.

[Geremia]

They have absolutely no training in physics or math. Sungenis is a religion major, while Delano is a high school dropout.

Sungenis has an undergraduate degree in physics.

[GloriaPatri]

they've never studied physics.

That's a lie.

It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/

So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. 


Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. 

[Aquila]

they've never studied physics.

That's a lie.

It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/

So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. 


Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. 

It's absurd. Then they use theory of relativity to talk about how the Earth could be a frame of reference...while simultaneously denying relativistic concepts, such as the constant speed of light. It's hilarious.

[Sbyvl36]

they've never studied physics.

That's a lie.

It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/

So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. 


Edit: Though this is not directly related to the discussion at hand, I always find it funny when geocentrists state that it seems absurd for the Earth to move in an orbit of ~108,000 km/hr, but they have no problem believing the Sun, an object whose mass is 333,000x that of Earth, does the same thing. And let us not forget that the Sun is approx. 99.86% of the mass of the Solar System, but it inexplicably orbits an object that is only 0.0003% of that mass, if the geocentrist is to be believed. 

You assume those measurements are correct.  The Sun is closer and smaller than the scientists believe.

[GloriaPatri]

Those measurements are correct Sbyvl. Eratosthenes determined the distance of the Sun from the Earth to be 804,000,000 million stadia, or 149 million km. Which is what the Earth's orbit is. From there it's easy enough to determine the radius of the Sun.

Here's a concise explanation for the laymen amongst us: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=400

And of course Sbyvl all you offer is your unsubstantiated conjecture. Please, by all means provide your method for proving the Sun to be so much closer and smaller than empirical evidence has lead us to believe. I'm sure you could win a Nobel prize for proving 22 centuries of measurement wrong 

Edit: Note that the remarks about Eratosthenes comes from Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea's Praeparatio evangelica written in the early third century.

[Geremia]

they've never studied physics.

That's a lie.

It's not a lie. Sungenis hold's no degree in physics. He's never studied it at either the undergrad or graduate level. Here's his About section on his website. No mention of a degree in physics. http://catholicintl.com/about/

Just because he doesn't mention it there doesn't mean he doesn't have such a degree. He personally told me he was a physics major.

So please, Geremia, do a bit of basic research before you start clinging to this pseudoscientific claptrap.
And you say you're majoring in physics. 

Yes, I have a degree in physics.

"O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken." —St. Luke 24:25