Geocentricism

Please stop mispelling the word experiment.Voters, please note that my opponent has stooped so low as to "kritik" me (attacking my spelling instead of my actual argument, something totally irrelevant to the debate).Wrong! Gravitational lensing is not everywhere... the entire sky should just be lensed images of distorted stars and galaxies.This just confirms my opponent doesn't know what he/she is talking about. Firstly, gravitational lensing is mostly weak gravitational lensing, meaning it is not visible to the human eye since it is less than 1% distortion. Secondly, I don't know about you, but I can't see entire galaxies with my naked eye, you need high-powered telescopes to see galaxies as more than one dimensional dots. The stars, of course, aren't going to be lensed since they are all (for the most part) in our own Milky Way galaxy, visible lensing only happens when the light from galaxies are lensed by entire galaxies. Yes, gravty is everywhere, but you need an insane amount of gravity to actual lense an object. Further, even with high-powered telescopes such as Hubble, strong gravitational lensing requires nearly-perfect alignment with the 2 galaxies. I was clearly exaggerating when I said "you see gravitational lensing everywhere", but nevertheless it is a very common occurence that is used for measuring dark matter, analyzing galaxies, etc.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.I assumed that you and the audience would be familiar with gravitational waves since they are a fairly recent occurence and that the explanations of experts in the field are far superior to my own, but if you want I will.Gravitational waves are essentially waves in the "fabric of space-time", in Einstein's theory of general relativity, Einstein predicts that massive objects (neutron stars, black holes, etc.) would disrupt space-time and cause ripples. I am not going to start with where in the actual theory it says that because it requires very complex mathematics that requires decades of experience,something I nor my opponent nor the audience has; however, I don't know why my opponent wants to debate whether or not Einstein predicted them... you don't hear gravitational waves without hearing Einstein's name attached, it's just pathetic that my oppoennt is blatantly denying facts... but I expected no less. Here are some studies backing me uphttps://arxiv.org...https://arxiv.org...Gravitational waves were detected via LIGO in which they used laser interferomtry to detected "wobbles" to incredibly high accuracies, down to a ten-thousandth of the diameter of a proton. "A laser beam is split down two 2.5-mile (4 kilometers) arms containing mirrors. The laser beams reflect back and forth off of mirrors, coming back to converge at the crux of the arms, canceling each other out. The passage of a gravitational wave would alter the length of the arms, causing the beams to travel different distances. The mismatch would be measurable with a light detector. LIGO facilities in Louisiana and Washington state operate simultaneously; the two data points allow triangulation of a gravitational wave's source in the sky." As always, here is some evidence because, although my opponent is unaware of this, all claims in science are backed up by EVIDENCE (as well as a solid foundation of mathematics). At least they are in true science.https://en.wikipedia.org...https://www.ligo.caltech.edu...https://www.newyorker.com...That equation was created by Gerber over 10 years before Einstein, and it explained the precession of Mercury without Relativity.Interestingly enough, I actually looked at your source and found that (literally about 3 lines later) this is stated: "More importantly, Roseveare showed that Gerber's theory is in conflict with experience: the value for the deflection of light in the gravitational field of the sun is too high in Gerber's theory, and if the relativistic mass is considered, also Gerber's prediction for the perihelion advance is wrong."As the reader can see, my opponent simply chery-picked what information he wanted to put in without mentioning the fallacies in Gerber's equation.That study was wrong.Your quote is taken from Dr. Lane, an infamous opposer to Einstein's theory of general relativity, of course he is going to be bias because he was opposing Einstein his entire life. Luckily for you, however, you are not living in the 1900s and now have thousands of studies confirming the initial study's observation of the Sun's deflection. For example:https://www.cfa.harvard.edu...http://adsabs.harvard.edu...http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org...http://www.jstor.org...http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...This clearly wasn't a mismeasurement, scientific expirements are tested again and again and again, ecspecially something as big as this. Here's even a photograph Hey! I corrected you about your misunderstanding of Relativity but you are going to pretend I'm the one who doesn't understand it?So high is my oppoennt's insecurity that he immediately assumes I'm talking to him; I was attempting to make it clear that I was talking about the audience who is most likely not familiar with the mathematics of General Relativity. You interpret it as being caused by gravity because you want Relativity to be true. What? What does this statement even mean? The "color of light" is very important since as it gets "redder", it symbolizes the loss of energy as it battles the FORCE of gravity. In science, facts and opinions are not combined when making an observation, gravitational redshift is clearly a direct result of gravity. For example, the Pound-Rebka expirement which essentially shot a beam of light to the top of the Harvard Tower and "demonstrated that a beam of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it climbed out of Earth's gravity and up an elevator shaft in the Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift predicted by Einstein's Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift detected came within ten percent of the computed value. Quite a feat!" (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu...)https://en.wikipedia.org...More expirements:https://journals.aps.org...https://search.proquest.com...https://arxiv.org... How do radars get reflected off of planets? Did you mean to say light gets reflected off of radars on planets?You just offended all the radar astronomers reading this. https://en.wikipedia.org..."Radar astronomy is a technique of observing nearby astronomical objects by reflecting microwaves off target objects and analyzing the reflections"The equivalence principle has been proven wrong... gravity has been proven to attract lead and copper at different speeds. Can you please explain exactly what the study shows? It seems to me, by reading the abstract ( I can't access the whole study for some reason), that you are exaggerating, if not lying. Remember Isaac Newton said Earth could stand still.Yes, and a giant goldfish could have made the universe, I still haven't seen any undeniable evidence that the Earth is geocentric nor any flaws in the heliocentric theory. You just seem to be taking what I say, making the opposite claim with absolutely no evidence, and then trying to make me look like I don't understand anything. Pretty low if I'm going to be honest. Also, your next quote contradicts itself where Weinberg states " if some other force besides ordinary gravitation acted on the Sun and planets.". What is this force? How come you haven't even brought it up? Tycho's theory of geocentrism is the one I believe in. I showed a picture of it earlier in this debate.Yes, audience, my opponent evidently passes through my tens of studies done by experts in the field of cosmology, yet my opponent has put nothing but a picture supporting geocentrism. A digitally drawn picture at that, I can draw a digitally drawn picture of a plate upon a turtle holding the Earth... we would both have the same amount of evidenceOf course it was sped up for illustration purposes so you wouldn't have to wait months to finish watching.I dont think you understand. In the animation, the total period for the retrograde motion in the ANIMATION'S TIME (NOT IN THE VIDEO'S TIME, the video is like 5 minutes) takes a matter of a day or so. Which you can see because in the animation, by the time Mars has completed its retrograde motion, the Sun has just completed its revolution around the Earth, which YOU defined as a day. Consequently, the animation is implying that the retrograde motion of Mars ACCORDING TO YOUR MODEL takes a matter of a day or so when the actual OBSERVERED time is a matter of weeks. they (the government) openly admit it (the geocentric model)What? I've never seen a government website supporting the geocentric model. In fact, if you look for 1 min on a NASA website, you will find statements like "While Copernicus rightly observed that the planets revolve around the Sun, it was Kepler who correctly defined their orbits" (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov...)