Geocentrism

1. Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun.Premise 1 is, indeed, that light emitted from a moving source will travel at the speed of light + the speed of the source. However, Premise 2 is not that light's speed is a constant. My cited experiment measured a small difference between the speed of light of two beams traveling in different directions, enough to account for the ether orbiting Earth at 1,000 mph but not nearly enough to account for the Earth orbiting the sun at 66,000 mph. Con seems to have glossed over the fact that my experiment proved light's speed isn't a constant.Assume the ether exists (I'll prove it does in a minute). Let's contrast two scenarios.A) The sun is stationary: Since the sun is stationary in the ether, Earth must revolve around the sun at 66,000 mph in order to complete it's annual orbit, and spin at 1,000 mph to complete the day/night cycle within 24 hours. This means that any light beam emitted in the direction of Earth's orbit will always travel at least 32,000 mph slower than a light beam emitted perpendicular to Earth's orbit, and at least 65,000 mph slower than a light beam emitted in the opposite direction of Earth's orbit. I say 'at least' to account for the 1,000 mph spin of Earth, but if you don't understand that little detail, don't worry. The important thing to note is that there will be a massive difference in the speed of two light beams travelling in opposite directions, or even perpendicularly, if Earth is actual orbiting the sun, which it must do at a great speed. Now, since it turns out that the difference among the speed of light beams emitted perpendicularly, as measured by the Michelson-Morley experiment, is less than 1/20th of 66,000 mph (in other words, less than about 3,000 mph), Earth cannot be orbiting the sun. But there's still a pink elephant in the room that I must address: if the light beams fired in different directions on Earth travel at different speeds, doesn't this prove that Earth is performing some kind of movement, even if it's not orbiting the sun?The answer is no. While this result is consistent with Earth spinning at 1,000 mph, since a difference in the speed of multiple light beams of less than 3,000 mph is at least consistent with such a spin ('less than 3,000 mph' is consistent with '1,000 mph'), it does not prove the spin, since a rotation of the ether around Earth at 1,000 mph is equally consistent with this result. B) The Earth is stationary: Let's look at the immobile Earth model now, and see why it fits the data perfectly. In this universe, Earth is neither orbiting the sun nor spinning on an axis. Rather, the entire universe, which entails all the ether, is revolving around Earth. It completes one revolution every 24 hours, carrying the sun with it, causing day and night, which is exactly what your eyes tell you whenever you look at the sky. At the surface of the Earth, the ether must travel 1,000 mph to complete the revolution in 24 hours. This means that light emitted in different directions near Earth's surface (like in the Michelson-Morley experiment) will vary in speed by about 1,000 mph only. This is exactly what the experiment confirmed. Now I'll get back to Con's request for the existence of ether. The first proof of ether is a simple appeal to intuition: light waves must travel through something, just like water waves and sound waves travel through water and air, respectively. If light waves don't travel through anything but empty space, then what are the light waves waves of? Waves of nothing? That's absurd. Waves of energy? Might sound logical at first glance, but saying that light waves are waves of energy is an incoherent concept, since energy is immaterial and thus can't take any physical shape, much less the shape of a wave. Just as the energy of one dominoe is transmitted to another dominoe by physical contact, creating a wave in a long line of dominoes, so must the energy of light be propogated from one particle of matter to another, creating a wave of particles just like the energy of sound and water create waves in their respective mediums. The substance in which waves are created by the energy known as light is called ether, and I have proven it's existence by showing it to be absolutely necessary to explain the wave nature of light.Con said that he denies my first premise that the speed of light is affected by the speed of it's source. He says I have the burden of proof to show this is true. I'm rather confounded that Con challenges this extremely obvious and intuitive concept, and it really seems to me like it would be his burden to disprove what common sense and experience suggest: that anything emitted from a moving source will travel at the speed it was emitted + the speed of the source. For example, if I'm running and throw a ball, it will travel faster than if I'm standing still and throw a ball.My claim that Earth does not orbit/revolve around the sun remains proven and unrefuted.2. Earth does not spin/rotate.Con doubts the precision of the experiment I cited to prove the absence of Earth's rotation, so I'll offer another proof. If Earth were spinning, it would lose angular momentum over time due to friction against the ether (whose existence I have proven). However, throughout record history, the length of Earth's day has always been recorded as being 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds (temporary, minor fluctuations notwithstanding). In contrast, the length of a day on Venus has increased by almost 7 minutes in only 16 years, meaning it's spin is slowing down.(2) That's obviously due to a loss of Venus' angular momentum by friction with the ether. Earth's day has not gained even a single second in the past 6,000 years of recorded history, therefore, it cannot be spinning, and the explanation for why we see the stars revolve around us at night must be the most straightforward one: they really are revolving around us, and we are not tricked by our eyes everytime we look up at the sky.3. The universe does spin/rotate around Earth.Con says my source doesn't suggest the universe rotates around Earth. Apparently, he has glossed over the fact that the very thing he cited implies that the universe is spinning around Earth, and reading the full article confirms this. However, since the author of the article doesn't want to admit Geocentrism, yet cannot deny the evidence that the universe is spinning around Earth, he makes the outrageous claim that the universe isn't spinning only around Earth, but it's spinning around every single point in the universe too. This is logically absurd and therefore scientifically impossible. So, although it is true that my article from NewScientist agrees with me that the universe spins around Earth, it wants to disagree that the universe spins only around Earth. Because of this, I shall cite hard evidence to prove my case instead of appealing only to the fallible authority of NewScientist: Longo sampled over 15,000 galaxies[...] Looking northward, above the plane of our Milky Way, he found that more than half of the spirals were spinning in a counterclockwise direction in the sky[...] If the whole universe is rotating, then an excess number of galaxies on the opposite part of the sky, below the galactic plane, should be whirling in a clockwise direction. And indeed they are according to a separate 1991 survey of 8287 spiral galaxies in the southern galactic hemisphere[...] In other words, the universe has a preferred axis, which means there is indeed a special direction in space[...] It has also been used to bolster biblical creationist arguments that we are at the “center” of the universe.(3) This proves that the universe spins at least roughly around Earth, but there is even more precise proof; namely, that the universe doesn't just spin around Earth, it spins exactly around Earth (as opposed to possibly some point slightly away from Earth). Let me explain.The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which spans the entire universe for as far as we can see, has a pattern in it. There are spots of relatively cool temperatures, and spots of relatively hot temperatures. These spots are arranged in pairs on opposite sides of the universe, and it turns out that if you draw an imaginary line, or axis, between the spots, it intersects perfectly with Earth's alleged spin axis: This alignment is considered to be so bizarre that it has been referred to as "the axis of evil"[...] The alignment[...] is especially problematic because this would suggest a serious bias in the [CMBR] data that is related to the direction of the Earth's spin axis[...](4) Alright, cool, there is a pattern in the universe that forms an axis that happens to intersect perfectly with Earth's alleged spin axis. The significance is that that the axis of the universe's rotation, which I previously discussed, is also aligned with it: [The] agreement of the [universe] spin alignment axis with the [CMBR axis of evil] reinforces the finding[...] and suggests that this special axis spans the universe[...](5) So, the universe spins along an axis, the same axis found in the CMBR, which is the same axis around which Earth is alleged to spin. I've already proven Earth doesn't spin, and it can't be that both the universe and Earth are spinning at the same time around the same axis, since simultaneous spin of Earth and the universe around the same axis would mean the stars would never appear to move in the sky, as they'd be spinning along with the Earth. Therefore, only the universe spinning, and it's doing so around Earth, and this explains why we see the stars revolve around the night sky.I'll rebut Con's last two arguments in the next around since I'm out of space.(2) http://www.universetoday.com...(3) http://news.discovery.com...(4) http://arxiv.org...(5) http://arxiv.org...