Geocentrism

You are right on the fact that, if relativity is wrong, there is no reason to believe that light speed is constant. Except, relativity is true. The following are experiments that prove the constancy of the speed of light (to be more accurate, they are abstracts of articles on this topic): https://journals.aps.org...... https://journals.aps.org...... Here are two articles on the constancy of light speed too: https://www.google.gr...... http://www.emc2-explained.info...... There are also many experiments that prove relativity, most important of which being the prediction of the changes in Mercury's orbit. https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... Note that there are many more experiments concerning light speed constancy and relativity, which you can find through a little research. I only mentioned few of them. I would suggest you looked into it using Google's scientific articles search. The Wang, or rather Sagnac, experiment, was quite an intriguing case. The problem with this experiment is, it is conducted on a rotating system, which is considered a non-inertial frame. From what I read, though, apart from it being a non-inertial frame, it is also a matter of interpretation. For a more elaborate and illuminating explanation, please read the following: http://www.physicsinsights.org...... If I were able to explain why and how do quanta obey quantum instead of Newtonian physics, I would be giving lectures in universities and scientific institutes instead of debating on an online website. For now, there is no "why". There is just "is" or "is not". Your analogy is irrelevant because, as said before, you presented motion ruled by quantum physics to happen in the same way as motion in the Newtonian physics. Never did I say that redshifts disprove geocentrism. I merely mentioned that the opposite does not happen either. Despite that, redshifts can be used as evidence supporting the theory of the big bang. Moreover, concerning the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - CMBR, please read the following. http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org...... This article provides a detailed explanation of the unisotropies of the CMBR, more sophisticated than I could have written here limited to use only 10,000 characters. For more proof of the big bang, see "observable evidence" in"https://en.m.wikipedia.org...... As for your explanation of the Coriolis effect, I find it funny how you debunked your own claim that the earth does not spin. To explain myself, to say that the universe rotates around a stationary earth in a certain direction is exactly the same as saying that the earth spins relative to the stationary universe towards the opposite direction. Hence, your claim itself suggests that the earth spins, contrary to your initial statements. The above proved that whether the earth spins or not is a matter of frame of reference. What separates your model of the universe from mine is the claim that the earth is positioned at the center of the universe and is absolutely motionless relative to it (well, if it was not motionless, it would not be able to maintain it's position). I would like to point out here that there is a mistake of great significance in the Geocentric model, concerning the orbit of the Sun around the earth. I will elaborate on that, but first I am to explain a few things to avoid misunderstandings. First of all, the geocentric model - referring to the part of it that describes our solar system - is practically absolutely right and the same as the heliocentric one, in the way you presented it. By looking at the second image you sent me, one can tell that it depicts the solar system of the heliocentric model, viewing it relatively to the earth, making the latter seem stationary. One more point I will make and which should be remarked is that, by what you said earlier, namely "the image is not drawn to scale", referring to the size of the Sun, it is probably safe to assume that the Sun's mass and size are the same in both models (if not, you will have to explain in a plausible way the planets' orbits, the Aurora borealis, the shifts in the orbit of Mercury and many more phenomena whose explanation hinges on that). To be exact, you cannot deny that the Sun's mass is higher than the earth's for various reasons. I hope that you understand and agree with me on that. To get to the point, through some quick calculations I found that the Sun's gravitational force on earth, which equals the earth's gravitational force on the Sun, is approximately F=35*10^21 N, meaning that the Sun, in your frame of reference, revolves around the earth at a speed great enough to maintain its orbit, thanks to inertia. There would be nothing wrong with that, unless you claim that the earth is stationary and located in the exact center of the universe, or, to rephrase, motionless relative to the universe, being in its center. With this, the problem arises; the Sun revolving around a motionless earth is impossible, for its mass is way higher than the earth's. I will explain with an example: Imagine that you are in a certain spot in space, holding a rope to which an elephant is tied. The elephant is revolving around you, tied with the rope, in a great speed. Trust me, you will not be able to maintain your initial position, for the elephant's inertial force, schematically pointing out of the circular orbit, will be greater than yours, since it is proportional to the elephant's great mass, which too is higher than yours. One could claim that the elephant revolves around you or that you revolve around the elephant, as it is a matter of frame of reference. But it would be impossible for you to maintain your position, which could, for example, be the center of the universe. The only way this could happen is with a force that for some reason would keep you in your initial position, but there is no such force except inertia. That is why the Geocentric model is, too, impossible.