Geocentricism

"I believe you are referring to Olber's Paradox"Yes."Some explanations include ... The Universe has only a finite number of stars."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 distribution of stars is not uniform. So, for example, there could be an infinity of stars, but they hide behind one another so that only a finite angular area is subtended by them."This would be contrary to the Big Bang, which says the distribution of stars mut be uniform."... The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity."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."... The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet."It's unclear what you mean by young. Thousands of years? Millions? Billions?"But... they weren't the same exact equation... Gerber uses the finite speed of GRAVITATION while Einstein uses the finite speed of LIGHT"Your own paper says Gerber had gravity going at the speed of light, making the speed of gravity and light identical. Further, your paper does not say they weren't the same exact equation. They were the same equation as Eintein noted, as I cited in a previous round."Where do I even start with this."By explaining why a gravity wave squashing the tunnel makes more sense than gravity slowing down the light."You essentially just said "the only way this result could have happened with gravity is if the light travelled faster than c"... which is impossible because the speed limit for all objects is c (if you want to oppose this, fine, just show me one instance where an object travelled faster than c, including light)."The Wang experiment demonstrates light going faster than c. (1) Here is an animation illustrating it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmGStcDcUGk The second part of the animation is the same as the first, except in the observer's frame. 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."Newton OBSERVED the bending of light while Einstein presented an EXPLANATION"Newton did not observer it, but he predicted it explaining that gravity should bend light towards a mass."Newton lacked an explanation for both the bending of light and gravity"For the bending of light his explanation was gravity. For gravity, you are right that he didn't have an explanation."he simply presented a plethora of LAWS that accurately matched what we OBSERVE and have so far passed allTERRESTRIAL tests."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?"as it travelled UP, the wavelength INCREASED --> meaning the energy DECREASED, making your argument of "if just could've initially had that color" invalid."My argument was talking about the redshift of starlight, I never denied that in principle redshift can be caused by gravity. I was simply saying that the redness of starlight might not be caused by gravity, but might simply be its natural color. So my argument stands that redness is not proof of gravity stretching the light."Also, radars are essentially radio waves"If your native language English? If it's not, then it's easier to understand why you are so confused as to the definition of "radar." A radar is not radio waves, not essentially, and not in any sense. Radars are things that detect radio waves, but radars themselves are not radio waves."Likewise in this scenario, according to Newton, geocentrism can ONLY be true if this force EXISTS, yet you don't even know the NAME of the force."In General Relativity the force is called gravity and it's created by the rotation of the universe around Earth."But if it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, then days would last for a year."There are two motions of the sun, the annual revolution and the daily revolution. The daily revolution is not shown in my animation for the same reason the Earth's spin isn't shown in time-lapse photos of Mars' retrograde motion: the retrograde motion would not be seen with the daily revolution superimposed over the annual revolution. Look at this photo. It shows Mars in the sky at the same clock-time over several nights spaced over a period of weeks. Using your logic, this means one night on Earth lasts several weeks. You fail to realize that the daily revolution of the sun, stars and universe around the Earth is omitted in the photo because that's the only way to see Mars perform the retrograde motion. This photo is taken from Earth, therefore its perspective is Geocentric. This proves that Mars' retrograde motion is compatible with Geocentrism.I hope you understand this explanation."What does this even mean? "Helicoentric model is false cause Relativity is dumb". What?"I said Relativity is stupid because it allows for both geocentrism and heliocentrism. It says both are equally true when in reality, only one can be."Yes, it is convienient to use different frames, however your argument does nothing to prove that geocentrisim is the right one, you're just stating "NASA uses both frames, but geocentrisim is right because I said so""I didn't say geocentrism is right because "I said so." I said it's right because the best interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is that Earth is standing still. I understand that Relativity is anotherexplanation, but Relativity is false. This can be proven using logic alone. Take Relativity's premise that the speed of light is always c no matter what frame of reference you use. Then, use the reference frame of a particle of light, a photon. According to Relativity, this photon must be moving at c, but since all frames are motionless relative to themselves, it must also be not moving at all. So we arrive at the absurd conclusion that a photon is both moving at c and not moving at all. Its speed is zero and c at the same time.Let me put this in syllogism form to make it clearer: Premise 1: Photons always move at c. Premise 2: Frames are always motionless relative to themselves. Conclusion: In the frame of a photon, that photon is moving at c and motionless at the same time. Impossible!My other proof that Relativity is false is the Wang experiment I cited previously. Since these two points falsify Relativity, we have eliminated Relativity as a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment and must resort to the last one standing:Geocentrism.