Geocentricism

If the universe is finite then it has a boundary and a center, relative to which the absolute motion could be measured, contrary to Relativity.The Hubble's Bubble/Observable Universe is finite, the actual physical universe could be infinite. However, we can't see outside the Hubble Hubble since the space beyond that boundary is travelling faster than light. (No, that does not contradict Einstein's theories because space/spacetimeexpansion is dictated by Einstein's theory of GENERAL Relativity, which, unlike SPECIAL Relativity, does not have a speed of limit; I find that youmade that mistake countless amounts of times), so we can only see a finite amount of stars.Regardless, we are not the center of the universe since spacetime itself is expanding. Think about it as some flies glued onto the surface of a balloon,as you blow up the flies, they are all moving apart from each other. And, from the perspective of each fly, all the other flies are moving away from itmaking it appear as he/she is the center of the balloon. Clearly, he/she isn't. This would be contrary to the Big Bang, which says the distribution of stars mut be uniform. The Big Bang Theory never makes that distinction; however, a main assumption of Cosmology is that space is homogeneous. However, you are a fool if you truly think that applies onto scales of stars, homogeneity is only apparent on scales of GIGAPARSECS (billions of parsecs; a parsec being roughly 3.3 light years). Also, homeogeneity and isotropy are VERY apparent in the CMB (Cosmic Microwave Background) which is uniform to a factor ofof about 1 part in 100,000! (http://cmb.physics.wisc.edu...)Obviously, it can't be perfectly uniform because then we wouldn't have galaxies since matter wouldn't collapse into any points due to the perfectly uniformity, so the CMB fits perfectly with our current model of the Universe. If the universe is 3D (as experience proves) and is expanding so that all stars are red-shifted (moving away) from Earth's perspective, that requires Earth to be the center of the universe.First off, the Andromeda galaxy is moving towards us under the influence of gravity (https://en.wikipedia.org...)so not all objects are moving away from us (they should be if we are the center).Secondly, as I explained earlier, since space itself is expanding, it appears that every object is the center of the universe. Thirdly, a common misconception is that the Big Bang came from a singularity, all the Big Bang requires is that the early universebe extremely dense, the Big Bang is more accurately explained as "uniform exponential expansion" more than an explosion from a singularity.So there was no "center" neccessarily for the Big Bang, there could be, but it doesn't require it.Fourthly, the universe is boundaryless, consequently, it's impossible for there to be a center for such an object. (center relative to what?) By explaining why a gravity wave squashing the tunnel makes more sense than gravity slowing down the light.Where did this come from? What gravity would affect the light in the tunnel? Even the gravity of the entire Earth doesn't affected the light.Do you really think that the people behind this project, costing millions of dollars, didn't think of one of the most simple things: gravity?You don't give evidence for why gravity would affect the light in the ways observered in the first place, so I won't waste space typing a rebuttal to it. The Wang experiment demonstrates light going faster than c. Here my opponent goes again... severely oversimplifying complicated expirements to the point where his conclusion is just plain WRONG.To truly understand why the Wang expirement doesn't allow for superluminal speeds of light, a very deep knowledge of optics/light is needed,something that neither I nor (clearly) my opponent has. Just in case there a few that are experts on light, here is an explanation:"The wavepacket seems to exit the cell well before it enters, but the negative refractive index "forward shifts" the leading edge of the pulse. It is argued that although this is superluminal, information cannot be transmitted faster than c. Gauthier and Stenner (https://journals.aps.org...)introduced a jump discontinuity into the waveform. Its max speed was c ". https://physics.stackexchange.com...(https://www.nature.com...)http://www.physics.louisville.edu... The observer records one light beam going c minus the observer's speed, and the other light beam going c plus the observer's speed.According to Special Relativity, this is not how things work. If you travel at a certain velocity, v, if you turn on a flashlight, the light doesn'tgo at v+c. But, I forgot, you deny basic facts... my bad. Nevertheless, this animation doesn't work as proof... I could make an animationblatanly breaking all known laws by placing the Earth on top of turtle while the Earth is in the shape of a dragon. Same proof as you provided.No, it didn't the pass the test where the gravity of uranium attracted copper and lead at different speeds. You completely ignored that experiment in this round. Why?I ignored that expirement because you did the same thing you did with the Wang's expirement... severely oversimplifying the expirement, drawing a completelyfalse conclusion. It is clear that you didn't understand the expirement, so I had no reason to waste my time trying to convince you of otherwise.So my argument stands that redness is not proof of gravity stretching the light.I never said that "redness" is a proof of gravitational redshift. I said gravitational redshift can CAUSE redshift, as you just admitted.Since you seem to agree that gravity can cause redshift, I have nothing to say, you just confirmed that you agree in favor of general relativity. Radars are things that detect radio waves, but radars themselves are not radio waves.You know what I meant, stop focusing on my spelling/word choice and focus on the actual argument please.Otherwise, it just shows you have nothing better to do. I would understand if you didn't know what I meant, but you clearlyknow I meant that actual radio waves, not the radars themselves. And yes, English isn't my native language.In General Relativity the force is called gravity and it's created by the rotation of the universe around Earth.What? First off, if that "force" was gravity, Newton would have just said so, gravity already "existed". Secondly, how the bloody hell is gravity caused by the rotation of the universe?How does the universe even rotate? What energy causes this rotation? There are two motions of the sun, the annual revolution and the daily revolution.How can there be an annual revolution and a daily revolution? Do you mean that 365.25 daily revolutions make up an annual revolution?I don't see how the motion in the animation is an "annual revolution" (whatever the heck that even means).Earth's spin isn't shown in the photo because all they did was just take a picture once a night of mars, in your animation,it's a continous motion. There is no pause. Okay, but let's just say that IS the annual revolution. That would mean that theretrograde motion lasts about a YEAR according to your animation since it takes one annual revolution for Mars to complete itsretrograde motion. So..... it's still off the observed length of time: a couple of weeks. Using your logic, this means one night on Earth lasts several weeksNo it doesn't... that photo is, by your own words, taken "at the same clock-time over several nights spaced over a period of weeks".However, your animation is not like that, it's just that: an animation; continoues. Also, as I stated earlier, if that is the "annual revolution",the retrograde motion should last for about a year.This photo is taken from Earth, therefore its perspective is Geocentric. This proves that Mars' retrograde motion is compatible with Geocentrism.What? I think you're getting geocentric FRAMES OF REFERENCE and geocentricism mixed up. In our everyday lives, we are in a geocentric frame since the Earth is rotating and revolving at a constant velocity, consequently, it's impossible to feel that motion(constant velocity is impossible to feel). So it SEEMS as if everything is standing still. For example, if I'm riding a train at a constantvelocity, it seems as if I'm still and everything is moving away from me. This clearly isn't the case...However, the model of the SOLAR SYSTEM is NOT geocentric. I don't see what the cooleration is whatsoever, you just said"this picture was taken from Earth, therefore this proves geocentrism". What? Premise 1: Photons always move at c. (True) Premise 2: Frames are always motionless relative to themselves. (INERTIAL FRAMES OF REFERENCES ARE IMPOSSIBLE FOR PHOTONS, it is a basic fact (https://arxiv.org...) Conclusion: In the frame of a photon, that photon is moving at c and motionless at the same time. (Ya...... no). ConclusionMy opponent never presents any evidence whatsoever nor fluent mathematics. He simply, once again, goes off on a tangentas to dodge needing to present evidence for geocentricism. He denys basic facts for the sake of denying them. He personally attacks me. He "kritiks" my spelling instead of my word choice.He never presented actual evidence for geocentricism, instead going off on a tangent and denying everything, as fundamental as it is. He refuses to keep his ears open. This behavior is unacceptable in a civilized debate. The absence of undeniable proof for geocentricism results in the automatic loss of my opponent. He was unable to provide evidence for how to account for the retrograde motion of Mars, the phases of Venus, etc. instead turning to pictures/animations that don't prove anything. You need SOURCESand MATH.