Geocentricity: The Debates 2

Books by Scott Reeves:

The Big City

Demonspawn

Billy Barnaby’s Twisted Christmas

The Dream of an Ancient God

The Last Legend

Inferno: Go to Hell

Scruffy Unleashed: A Novella

Colony

A Hijacked Life

The Dawkins Delusion

The Newer New Revelations

Death to Einstein!

Death to Einstein! 2

The House at the Center of the Worlds

The Miracle Brigade

Tales of Science Fiction

Tales of Fantasy

The Chronicles of Varuk: Book One

Soldiers of Infinity: a Novelette

Flames of the Sun

The Compleat Snowybrook Inn

Liberal vs. Conservative: A Novella

Zombie Galaxy: The Outbreak on Caldor

Apocalyptus Interruptus: A Novella

Temporogravitism and Other Speculations of a Crackpot

A Crackpot’s Notebook, Volume 1

FREE Star Trek short stories by Scott Reeves on Wattpad:

Star Trek Voyager: Phantoms of the Mind

Star Trek TOS: Warp Speed

Star Trek TNG: Final Requiem

Star Trek Voyager: Home

Star Trek TNG: The Haunting of Orgala 512

Star Trek TNG: Leap of Faith

Star Trek Voyager: Intrepid Voyagers

http://www.youtube.com/TheBigScaboo

Introduction

LIKE ITS PREDECESSOR, this book consists of exchanges I have had with people on YouTube over the past several months. The subject was geocentricity. In case you don’t know, geocentricity is the theory that Earth is stationary at the center of the universe. Yes, believe it or not, in the modern world there are still people who actually advocate such a model of the universe. And as I’ve discovered, many people have an irrational hatred for anyone who dares to so much as utter the word geocentricity. Only stupid, whacked out, scientifically illiterate, Bible-thumping, delusional, insane, anti-science, murderous, pedophilic, ignorant, conspiracy-theorists could possibly believe Earth is at the center of the universe. Despite the fact that, according to Einstein, from the viewpoint of an observer stationary relative to the Earth, it is perfectly valid to say that Earth is stationary at the center of the universe. But of course, if you ask most modern relativists, I just told you a bald-faced lie. Einstein would never have said such a thing.

But I didn’t lie. I told you the bald-faced truth. It’s a truth which most of Einstein’s supporters do not like to admit. In some cases, they don’t even seem to be aware that their own theory actually supports geocentricity, because it MUST.

But this brief introduction isn’t the actual debate, so I’ll save the arguments for later. And I’m sure that some people will say these aren’t actually debates, but are rather discussions. That’s fair enough, but I think Geocentricity: The Debates has more power to it than Geocenricity: The Discussions. So I went with debates.

A couple of the usernames herein have been reduced to initials, to protect the innocent and all that.

I myself do not know who any of the persons I interacted with are in real life. I don’t know their credentials or the level of their scientific literacy. So I make no claim as to the veracity of anything they say. If you’re uncertain of any of their claims, do your own research into what they’re saying. The same goes for anything I say. Never accept anything at face value, no matter which side is saying it or how much authority they appear to have. Just because someone has a PhD in a subject doesn’t necessarily mean their area of expertise has any basis in reality, and just because someone doesn’t have a PhD in a subject doesn’t mean they can’t possibly have an expert understanding of the subject.

It should also be noted that, where possible, this book is being given away for free. I am not doing this book for money. The price of the paperback version is basically just the cost of manufacturing charged by the printer.

Hopefully the format of the debates is easy to follow. I use the label "[someone] wrote:" and then present what they wrote, exactly as it is posted on YouTube, without any editing, spelling or grammar correction. In most cases, the statement of the opponent is in quotes, followed by the response. Should be pretty self-evident once you start reading.

Also, occasionally there will be instances of +ScottReeves, or +JoeBlow, etc. This is the Google+ system, and simply identifies the user at whom the subsequent commentary is directed.

For anyone who is interested, I have numerous videos of my own on my YouTube channel that further expand on my thoughts on the subject of geocentricity and the pseudo-science that is Relativity.

I want to stress that this book is by no means a comprehensive treatise on the subject of geocentricity, and I urge every reader to do an in-depth study into the subject and come to your own conclusions regarding it. I also highly recommend the works of Robert Sungenis on the subject.

I want to thank everyone who took the time to enter the arena with me. I had fun doing this, and the opposition helped me to clarify my own stance on geocentricity. I think these were good debates on both sides.

Lastly I would like to congratulate the obvious victor: absolute Geocentricity.

One

Scott Reeves and Chris MCMLXXXII

Comments on Testing CoolHardLogic on Geocentricity: Testing Geocentrism - Part 10, by Scott Reeves

CHRIS MCMLXXXII WROTE

Your facetious and pretentious accent doesn’t do you any favours.

Do you expect him to change his voice to appease you? This is the way he speaks. How do you explain annual doppler shift in the CMB and Stellar Aberration?

Scott Reeves wrote:

Your facetious and pretentious accent doesn’t do you any favours.

I didn’t expect it to. CHL’s anti-geocentric/anti-Relativity arguments are easily defeated without the aid of a fake accent. I just found it personally amusing to use the accent.

Do you expect him to change his voice to appease you?

Did I ask him to? Did I say anywhere that I expected him to?

How do you explain annual doppler shift in the CMB and Stellar Aberration?

CHL himself explains the doppler shift in the CMB from the geocentric perspective in his Part 10, so why do I need to? Quoting CHL from his Video 10: However, we can solve that problem, and the annual Doppler and parallax problems, with one simple change...

As for stellar aberration, I’ll leave that to you to look into using the many sources that are out there, if you’re truly interested in the answer and aren’t just baiting me. I’m more interested in why you (I assume) believe aberration can’t be explained from a geocentric perspective. Surely you don’t believe that the geocentric reference frame lacks explanatory power and is thus an inferior frame, in violation of Relativity?

Chris MCMLXXXII wrote:

Then why did you need to use the fake accent? If his arguments are so easily defeated then why would you use that ridiculous voice?

I am not a physicist. I don’t know what that last part means. I just wanted you to explain to me why Stellar Aberration happens with Geocentric model. After enduring that awful accent I can see why it the annual doppler shift in the CMB would happen. I’d also like to know how you explain Foucault’s Pendulum assuming you believe the Earth is entirely stationary, which you must surely

You basically used the same argument as Malcolm Bowden. This is fernieboy100’s warped view of Geocentrism it’s not mine, therefore, you haven’t debunked anything. If that was all specifically addresses to fernieboy100 then you really aren’t giving him the credit he is due. He can’t address everyone’s particular brand of bollocks.

I do have to add that while your fake accent made your rebuttal impossible to watch, at least you didn’t give up after 2 minutes. If you want to be taken seriously ditch the ridiculous accent that makes you seem so arrogant.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Thanks for your comments, seriously. I really do appreciate them, even if we’re being contentious.

Then why did you need to use the fake accent? If his arguments are so easily defeated then why would you use that ridiculous voice?

As I said, it amused me to use it. It wasn’t because I didn’t think my arguments would be successful without it. Did I successfully come across as an ass?

I just wanted you to explain to me why Stellar Aberration happens with Geocentric model.

Short heliocentric explanation: Earth moves in vertical starlight, so Earth telescope needs to be tilted. Short geocentric explanation: stars and light move (similar to wind-blown rain) so Earth telescope needs to be tilted. People who argue that there’s no geocentric explanation for stellar aberration are forgetting the relativity of motion. Geocentrists don’t deny relativity of motion (at least this one doesn’t).

I’d also like to know how you explain Foucault’s Pendulum assuming you believe the Earth is entirely stationary, which you must surely

The rotation of the universe around Earth causes the Coriolis force, which affects Focault’s Pendulum.

This is fernieboy100’s warped view of Geocentrism it’s not mine, therefore, you haven’t debunked anything. If that was all specifically addresses to fernieboy100 then you really aren’t giving him the credit he is due. He can’t address everyone’s particular brand of bollocks.

CHL’s Part 10 doesn’t address fernieboy100. It addresses the reigning modern geocentric model, a.k.a. the Neo-Tychonic model. And I debunked CHL’s arguments against it.

If you want to be taken seriously ditch the ridiculous accent that makes you seem so arrogant.

I’ve made hundreds of videos on Relativity and Geocentricity. Four of them, the ones responding specifically to CHL’s videos, have the accent, because it amused me to use it in his case. So there’s nothing to ditch. But truth is truth whether it’s being delivered by Popeye, Bugs Bunny, or a guy with a fake British accent. If I have to get rid of my fake accent to be taken seriously, then CHL needs to get rid of his invective and his ad hominem attacks on people like fernieboy100 for the same reason.

At the end of the day, Relativity is about the physical equivalence of all reference frames. If the geocentric reference frame cannot explain a physical phenomenon in terms of that frame, then it is an inferior frame, not physically equivalent to other reference frames, and Relativity is invalidated. Thus, any arguments claiming that a given physical phenomenon can’t be explained in a geocentric frame are actually arguments against Relativity.

Chris MCMLXXXII wrote:

I am clearly out of my depth here since you know your model and seem to have an answer for everything. Like I said, I am not a physicist. What I am not clear on is why you would still cling to this geocentric disaster when the heliocentric model explains everything without ad/post hoc excuses.

CoolHardLogic’s Testing Geocentrism, to me, as a non-physicist (pharmacology is my area, BSc) it was a brilliant dismantling of Geocentrism. I have to admit I can only go on what CoolHardLogic is presenting and you can call that cherry-picking or quote