Geocentrism

"Indeed, these were the results of the Michelson-Morley expirement. But you forget one thing; light is an electromagnetic wave, and electromagnetic waves travel at the constant speed of 300.000klm/sec. According to this, the results were pretty logical."I didn't forget that the speed of light is constant. I simply don't believe it. It doesn't make sense. If a light wave is coming towards me while I'm walking, the speed of light will seem to be faster because we are both approaching either other. Specifically, it will be the speed of light plus my walking speed.And if I'm walking away from it, it will be slower. The speed of light minus my walking speed.This is just like two cars approaching either other in head-on collision. If each car is moving at 50 mph as measured by their speedometers (which measures speed relative to the ground), it will seem to the drivers of both cars that the other car is approaching at 100 mph. Using this analogy one can see it's impossible for light to always be measured as going the same speed, since if you're moving with the lightbeam it'll seem to be going slower, and if you're going against it, it'll seem to be going faster. Just like in the car analogy."The expirement in that way also debunked the hypothesis of the ether as a medium through which electromagnetic waves travel."It did not debunk the aether hypothesis. It just proved the aether wasn't moving relative to Earth."I would like you to explain the cosmological hypothesis or theory you believe in."I believe what the Book of Genesis in the Bible says. The Earth was created about 6,000 years ago and the sun and moon and stars were created after the Earth. The universe is a sphere with Earth in the exact center, and the universe spins around Earth every 24 hours."I believe that the universe has no center, being homogenic and isotropic, and that the earth is a small planet orbiting the star known as "sun" and spinning."If the universe has no center then the Earth is moving around the sun relative to what? And the Earth is spinning relative to what? All motion is relative, but not all motion is absolute. The concept of motion doesn't make sense without an implied frame of reference."the big bang ... is supported by evidence that include the redshift effect and the cosmic microwave background radiation"Everything being redshifted means everything is moving away from Earth. Everything moving away from Earth proves Earth is the center of everything. That proves my theory right!The cosmic microwave background radiation actually proves the big bang is wrong, not right. The Big Bang predicts the arrangement of stars and galaxies in the sky to be completely random, but this 30 second video shows the opposite:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fk2Lgi3R4W4"Proof of the rotation of the earth is the Coriolis effect"Actually in General Relativity the Coriolis effect will be there even if Earth isn't spinning. I thought my opponent believed in General Relativity?"1. Once, I visited a well known observatory close to the area I live (Athens, Greece), and, since it was night, I was allowed to look through the telescope, which offered a great view of Saturn. But how was that able to happen, since, during the night, the Sun as well as the planets orbiting it, including Saturn, should not be visible?"My image didn't have Saturn in it. Sorry. Here is a better version: "2. The scientific society clearly states that the correct model is the heliocentric. Why would they lie about that?"My opponent earlier said he believes the universe has no center, in other words, it's acentric. So how can he believe in both heliocentrism and acentrism when they contradict each other? Anyway to get to the point, modern science believes in acentrism so I simply don't believe the Scientific Society has said heliocentrism is true. Can my opponent provide a link? And exactly what scientific society is he talking about?"3. In the picture you sent me, the Sun looks really smaller than the one pictured by the scientific society. But, judging by its size, nuclear fusion should not be able to happen, especially for a time as long as we know the Sun to exist. It also would not be able to produce radiation so intense as seen in cases like the Aurora borealis, for example. Any explanations about that?"My image is not drawn to scale. I forgot to point that out."4. The geocentric model used to be considered true, but it was gradually proven to be more and more inaccurate, forcing astronomers to add epicycles and epicycles on the previous ones on the planets' orbits, in order to make it better."Actually Copernicus' heliocentric model had more epicycles than the geocentric one, so what you said isn't true."The problem was solved by Kepler's modifications on the heliocentric model, while the geocentric model still lacked in accuracy. What makes you think it is true?"Kepler's modifications of orbit shapes work in the geocentric model just as well as in the heliocentric. Besides, the geocentrist Cassini said the orbits are not ellipses like Kepler claimed, but are actually Cassinian ovals. Today, hundreds of years later, there is still no proof which person was right. (1)I believe the geocentric model is true because of the Michelson-Morley experiment.(1) http://iopscience.iop.org...