Geocentricism

For every galaxy there is another galaxy perfectly aligned behind it at some distance, so there should be lensing everywhere. But there isn't.I believe you are referring to Olber's Paradox where he states "why isn't the sky completely bright" since everywhere you look, there should be a star/galaxy, thus making the whole entire night sky bright. Obviously, this isn't case. Some explanation include The Universe has only a finite number of stars. 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. The Universe is expanding, so distant stars are red-shifted into obscurity. The Universe is young. Distant light hasn't even reached us yet (http://math.ucr.edu...)https://www.scientificamerican.com... Now just substitute galaxy for stars and you have your answer for why strong gravitational lensing is not everywhere. The equation is exactly the same as Einstein's, so if it has a fallacy then that means General Relativity has a fallacy.But... they weren't the exact same equation... Gerber uses the finite speed of GRAVITATION while Einstein uses the finite speed of LIGHT(https://arxiv.org...)But if there aren't any gravity waves, then the light beam reached the end of the tunnel faster not because the tunnel was squashed but because the light itself was propelled faster than c by the gravity wave, breaking Einstein's theory, and you can't prove this wrong. So gravity waves aren't proof of Relativity. They can be explained without it.Where do I even start with this. 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). Further, what force would propell the light so that it travels faster than c? Further, if it can be explained so easily, why did you not include an explanation that contradicts itself in the first sentence? Anyone who knows the first thing about electromagnetisim is that it can travel faster than the speed of light (c) in a vacuum, it would travel even slower in a medium such as water/air/etc.Also, hate to break it to you, but science doesn't work by saying "well I think it's blah blah blah and you can't prove me wrong". You have to present a claim and put evidence for it. Otherwise, I could simply say there is an invisible turtle hovering over your right shoulder that is impossible to detect, and you can prove me wrong. By your logic, there is indeed such a turtle.Isaac Newton already predicted this in his book OpticksNewton OBSERVED the bending of light while Einstein presented an EXPLANATION back up by EVIDENCE and MATHEMATICS, also known as a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. See the difference? Newton lacked an explanation for both the bending of light and gravity, he simply presented a plethora of LAWS that accurately matched what we OBSERVE and have so far passed all TERRESTRIAL tests (it's not perfect on larger scales, which is why we have Einstein's theory in the first place)That's what you believe, but there's no proof the light is red because it lost energy from gravity. Maybe the light is just naturally redYa.... no. In the expirement I posted in the previous argument, the expirementalists shot a beam of light (with a pre-determined wavelength) and found that as it travelled UP, the wavelength INCREASED --> meaning the energy DECREASED, making your argument of "it just could've intially had that color" invalid. I'll just restate the expirement for convience:The expirement "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." (http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu......)(referring to "You just offended all radar astronomers reading this")Did I? All I asked was how do radars, like the radars themselves, get reflected off of planets like you said? Radars reflect things, but radars themselves aren't reflected! joke j!3;k noun 1. a thing that someone says to cause amusement or laughter, especially a story with a funny punchline. synonym: geocentricismAlso, radars are essentially radio waves... light can be reflected off of planets... https://en.wikipedia.org...I'm not talking about the actual objects that detect these radio waves, obviously, since there are no such objects on the planets. However, light is obviously reflected (mirrors wouldn't work otherwise).I don't know what this force is, I just quoted this to show you that Newton admitted if this force exists than geocentrism can be true.Well, I could say that I could float if another force counter-acted gravity... yet no such force exists. 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. Since the force doesn't exist, geocentrism doesn't either according to Newton's statement.The revolution of the sun in the animation is clearly its annual revolution.But if it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, then days would last for a year. You clearly stated in the 2nd round "Day and night are caused by the sun's 24 hour revolution around Earth. The seasons are caused by the center of the sun's daily revolution annually oscillating.".Now you are saying that it takes a year for the Sun to revolve around the Earth, ruining the idea of day/night in geocentrism. You see reader, this is exactly what I was initially talking about: models o geocentrisim makes things up on the spot to compensate for observations, often leading to contradiction like this one, where the retrograde motion according to geocentrisim takes days when in reality it takes weeks, and when my opponent tried to rebute that geocentrisim makes up for this due to the Sun's annual motion around the Earth, now days last for a year, something that clearly isn't true. According to Relativity that you believe in, Copernicus was right and wrong at the same time because that's how stupid Relativity is.What does this even mean? "Helicoentric model is false cause Relativity is dumb". What? Please don't fall back on 1st grade arguments.I already proved to you that NASA uses a geocentrism frame of reference for launching satellitesHere was my opponent's "proof": "It's just a matter of perspective. They might've used a heliocentric frame to land on Mars but they use a geocentric frame to put satellites in space. (5)(6) When it comes to doing something like that it's just a matter of convenience whether to pretend Earth or the sun is standing still. But when it comes to the truth, only one can be truly still, and that's Earth."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". My opponent provides absolutely no proof of this statement whatsoever.Then right after saying that NASA uses both frames for CONVIENCE (not because one is right or wrong) he attempts to use a study where NASA uses a geocentric frame as proof that geocentrisim is the right model, when in reality, it just simplifies the study (since you don't have to talk about Earth's orbital motion, the Sun's motion in the Milky Way, etc.). In conclusion, my dear reader, my opponent lacks fundamental evidence for any of his claims. He simply spits out the opposite of what I say, ignoring all fundamental laws of physics, mathematics, etc. for the sake of disagreeing with me. He has stooped to the level of attempting to personally insult me and has turned to arguments such as "this doesn't work because Relativity is stupid", childish is not a strong enough word to accurately portray my disgust. He has contradicted himself with Mercury's precession/the sun's motion. He has not even presented evidence for the geocentric model, the topic this debate is about, instead going on a practically irrelevant tangent about General Relativity in which he simply immaturely throws aside any argument thrown at him without first presenting evidence support his claim. He has shown signs of the utmost ignorance, refusing to keep a open mind, leading to the thought that perhaps I am indeed wasting my precious time talking to deaf ears. My opponent has one argument left to present evidence for his model, I suggest he does so. Otherwise, he will have never even made an actual argument (backed up by evidence and mathematics) supporting his view on geocentricism.