Geocentricism

"I would like to see one test (that isn't posted by some random blogger, I'm talking about certified scientists) that disproves either theory."Here you go, On a Fringe Movement Registered on a Platform in Uniform Motion: "The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention ... with the result provided by this experiment." (1) "I was saying how his theories weren't SPECIFICALLY meant for the expirement"His Special Relativity theory was specifically meant for the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein said it himself. Please stop mispelling the word experiment."1.) Gravitational lensing ... literally just stare into a telescope and you will find gravitational lensing everywhere"Wrong! Gravitational lensing is not everywhere, but if your explanation of these curved galaxies were correct, that they appear to be curved because their light is being distorted by gravity, we should see gravitational lensing everywhere. There should not be a single object in the sky that isn't lensed, because gravity is everywhere. The entire sky should just be lensed images of distorted stars and galaxies. Do we see this? No, so your cool images cannot be explained by gravitational lensing."2.) Gravitational waves ...Not much to debate about there"There's nothing to debate because you haven't made an argument ... you just listed some sources you say claim gravitational waves exist. If you want to raise a point you're going to have to explain what gravitational waves are, how Relativity predicts them, and how they've been detected."3.) Perihelion precession of Mercury ... did not match the prediction by Newton's laws of gravity. "But you said Newton's laws of gravity passed all tests with flying colors! Now you admit it failed the precession of Mercury test. "In Einstein's theory of general relativity, he uses the equation ... which calculates the correct value for the pereihelion precession of Mercury."That equation was created by Gerber over 10 years before Einstein, and it explained the precession of Mercury without Relativity. Even Einstein said: Gerber ... already gave the right formula for the Perihelion shift of Mercury before me. (2) "4.) Deflection of light by the Sun ... I believe it was observed during a solar eclipse"That study was wrong. "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions ... can neither prove, nor disprove the relativity theory ... The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections" (3) "5.) Gravitational redshift ... This is a bit hard to explain to someone who doesn't know the fundamentals of general relativity"Hey! I corrected you about your misunderstanding of Relativity but you are going to pretend I'm the one who doesn't understand it? Voters, go back to Round 2 where I point out that my opponent didn't understand that in General Relativity the speed of light is not the same for all observers!Besides, this redshift proves nothing. The redshift is simply the color of the light and has nothing to do with gravity. You interpret it as being caused by gravity because you want Relativity to be true. "6.) Light travel time delay testing ... there was a time delay when radars are reflected off of planets in the Solar System. This delay occurs when the light gets near the Sun and gets curved"How do radars get reflected off of planets? Did you mean to say light gets reflected off of radars on planets?"7.) The equivalence principle: essentially sets inertial and gravitational mass of an object as equalThis is why when you drop two objects of unequal mass, they fall at the same rate. I'm not too familiar on the subject"The equivalence principle has been proven wrong. In the 1999 paper called Short range tests of the equivalence principle, gravity has been proven to attract lead and copper at different speeds. (4)"Ya, it makes sense that the Earth would pretty much defy all known laws of physics"Which law of physics is Earth defying? Remember Isaac Newton said Earth could stand still. Do you disagree with Newton?"NASA missions that land on Mars... yes, they totally just ignored that the Sun rotates around the Earth."It's just a matter of perspective. They might've used a heliocentric frame to land on Mars but they use a geocentric frame to put satellites in space. (5)(6) When it comes to doing something like that it's just a matter of convenience whether to pretend Earth or the sun is standing still. But when it comes to the truth, only one can be truly still, and that's Earth."WHERE it says that General Relativity alows for the geocentric model (just blatantly wrong)."Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics, said: If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho’s in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory. Newton seems to have had a hint of this. In an unpublished ‘Proposition 43’ that did not make it into the Principia, Newton acknowledges that Tycho’s theory could be true if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets. (7) Tycho's theory of geocentrism is the one I believe in. I showed a picture of it earlier in this debate."According to that animation.. the retrograde motion occurs WITHIN THE DAY ... Wow... it takes weeks if not MONTHS"Of course it was sped up for illustration purposes so you wouldn't have to wait months to finish watching. And the daily revolution of the sun was taken out so that you wouldn't get dizzy seeing it spin. Any actual concerns with the animation or is that it?"I don't get why my opponent most likely believes that the government is trying to "cover this up""I never said the government is trying to cover anything up. They know a geocentric frame is just as valid as a heliocentric one and as I proved with my quotes, they openly admit it. You're the one in the dark. Wake up! (1) http://www.conspiracyoflight.com...(2) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gerber(3) www.osapublishing.org/josa/abstract.cfm?id=48467(4) http://inspirehep.net...(5) ipnpr.jpl.nasa.gov/progress_report/42-95/95A.PDF(6) ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19880063126(7) Steven Weinberg, To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, page 251