Scotty99

!

Moderator Note

 

Scotty99

I want to draw your attention to rule 2.7, which states (in part)

 

Links, pictures and videos in posts should be relevant to the discussion, and members should be able to participate in the discussion without clicking any links or watching any videos. Videos and pictures should be accompanied by enough text to set the tone for the discussion, and should not be posted alone.

 

You need to post the details of the ideas you want to discuss. Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of video of a long-debunked idea is a lot to ask.

 

Seems im getting pushed away faster than i thought. Again i will ask from my original post:

Why havent i seen this discussed anywhere by mainstream scientists? Has this been completely and irrevocably dismissed as a theory?

 

Please link me something, anything with concrete evidence. Id LOVE to get off this but i CANT. The moderator says he knows for sure by the statement "Asking people to watch 2.5 hours of a long-debunked theory is a lot to ask" but i need more than this! Sorry but i just cannot take the word from a forum, i need PROOF. Link me a paper from someone, a video, a book i dont care but it has to be BULLETPROOF.

I understand asking them to watch all of this is kind of ridiculous, i simply wasnt prepared to have to combat bullet points from people replying to me, and thats not really something i want to do because i am not a proponent of this theory yet just CURIOUS. Again i will do a lot more research on this and be back better prepared.

What i meant by that last statement is this, try and imagine we know everything literally everything in the universe, what do we have to strive for.....where is our imagination? If we knew everything, what would our songs be about? What would our fairly tales be? What would our paintings look like? What im saying is our creator meant for us never to understand these things, so we would have an imagination and a sense of wonder about it all. I can understand a lot of things, but if i try and focus on something being infinite or our universe being created out of nothing.....i cant do it! Spirituality is different from religion, you can be spiritual and not religious, and if there is a term for this id say im that.

Again this is really hard to talk about because at the core its almost a religious debate, but that is not where i want to take this. I will be back better prepared to have a discussion about the actual scientific stuff that sungenis has put through in his work.

I would need to see the papers on cosmology that he has published.

 

See i really dont like this line of thinking, surely there have been discoveries about our universe we take as fact today that happened by someone that did not have a book published? I am going to re-watch these videos (along with others i watched) and i will come back better prepared to have a discussion on this. What i am finding hard so far is trying to argue for this mans work BUT not be taken as someone who fully believes in it, because i dont.

I will say one last thing before i return later. As ive said i am not a religious person, but i have long thought of the universe as having a creator. I recently watched a debate called "the existence of nothing" which included neil degrasse, lawrence krauss, and a few others i wasnt familiar with and at the end a person asked the question, "well maybe our minds simply arent up to the task to understand what is put forth". I think all of them agreed with this, which is something i have thought for a long time. Why is the universe such that its very own nature is something we cannot comprehend? To me that clearly says we were created by something much higher than us, can you imagine if we actually knew everyhing, it would be terrible! We would have no artists, no music, no nothing that makes us human.

Anywho ive babbled for too long, ill be back better prepared!

Yes thats why this is so hard to talk about it seems, it all boils down to religion. He goes into great detail in these videos (which i need to watch again, clearly) about his ideas on why he believes this to be true. I just dont understand why a person would spend his entire life dedicated to something just to be tossed aside by all of his peers.

I know the people in the movie afterwards all said they were "tricked" into this, but if you watch some of the interviews they gave to sungenis there is no possible way they didnt know what he was talking about.

That is not what they concluded. The experiment was to test for the existence of a "luminiferous aether". The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the Aether is not moving with respect to the Earth. Other experiments show that the aether is not stationary with respect to the Earth. Basically, all experiments show that the aether (which was only ever an assumption) is undetectable and therefore effectively non-existent.

 

I actually believe i misspoke on this one. Its been a while since ive watched these videos but the michaelson morley experiments were centric to his argument, i dont actually remember what conclusion he came to but i know it boiled down to the fact that we were an unmoving planet as evidenced by the aether.

I feel i need to re-watch the videos to get a firmer grasp on what he was saying so i can better explain his point of view, cause i cant force you guys to watch that video *(but please do if you are bored, it was endlessly entertaining for me).

First off im not ruling anything out lol, i am just a curious spectator that needs to consider everything before i move on.

Yes the movie is actually called "the principle" and has to do with the copernican principle and why sungenis believes it to be false. Again i knew nothing of this movie prior to watching those youtube videos i linked, and i agree religious motivation could be a thing here, thats what im trying to figure out. Let me say im not an athiest nor a religious person, if there is a term for being undecided that is what i am currently.

Much of these questions you put towards me can be answered by sungenis in those videos, i am not fully qualified. I dont fully take the cosmic radiation as proof, i dont take the michaelson morley experiments as proof, i dont take the bible as proof, nor do i take my idea of occams razor as proof.....but this subject has me so interested i had to make a thread on a science forum to try and clear things up, this is not like me lol.

Hey thanks for the reply, again im not entirely versed on all of this but im gonna try. The theory sungenis puts forward actually says the expanding universe fits better with us in the middle, because the universe is expanding at the same speed in every direction we look (another one of the factors he lists as evidence being in the center).

I am not familiar with Lambda CDM model so you will have to excuse me on that one, but if you google "axis of evil, cosmic microwave background" (i know terrible name, sounds like some conspiracy theory lol) apparently the entire thing points to a certain spot in the universe, which so happens to be our earth.

I think you missed the part about galileo where you say " Now, the problem is that putting the Earth at the centre does not fit the data of observational cosmology in the same way as the Lambda CDM model" what this theory states is we are working on an improper foundation, we need to re-think everything and the thing that gets me so worked up about this theory is that we dont have to create multiverses or dark matter for the math to work out, we just need to put the earth back in the center unmoving like people believed hundreds of years ago.

What theories are you talking about? The standard model of particle physics is well-tested and agrees with nature very well. General relativity is also known to agree with nature well.

 

Geocentrism is not at odds with general relativity, it is more to do with the unification the way i understand it. I would need to re-watch his video to be fully sure on this, but i know he stated gravity is not changed at all and the math works fine in geocentric model.

Hello, this is my first time posting on any science related forum, recently i have come across the idea that our entire basis of understanding in the universe may be ....lets say off lol. I am 33 years old, i didnt graduate high school (got my GED) and dropped out of college, i am not an idiot but i am not too good about putting my ideas down on paper, also not very good at punctuation i dont even know that comma was necessary! So please try not to criticize my typing or the way i put words together, im gonna try my best to put forth my thoughts.

So i have always been curious about how the world works, how we got here, and why are we here which i think is pretty common for a lot of people. I have tried to keep up with how progressed we have been in the fields, watched many string theory videos with brian greene as well as many lectures/debates with some of the top scientists like (im going to list people i know, maybe they are jokes in the inner circles but these are the ones visible to me) neil de'grasse tyson, lawrence krauss, michio kaku etc. Not one time have i ever saw any of these people mention geocentrism, and i come here to ask why. WIthin the last year ive comes across the idea of geocentrism, that the earth is in the center of the universe and we dont move at all, that the entire universe revolves around us (us being the center of mass of the universe). The theory (is it considered a theory, being that its been around so long?) says galileo was actually incorrect in his studying of the universe, and that maybe the bible was correct in stating we are unmoving at the center. I first came across this idea from a random youtube video i stumbled upon where a guy named robert sungenis was talking about how we got this all wrong, and he claims if you simply put the earth at the center unmoving, that we dont have to create the multiverses or dark energy/matter that is required for string theory to make sense. In his theory (again not sure if theory is the correct word) you dont even have to change anything einstein came up with, gravity works out just fine. He goes on to offer a lot of different evidence as to why this all may be true, like cosmic microwave background being pointed directly at the earth, all of the study michelson and morley did where they could not conclude the earth was moving, and a lot of other stuff that i cannot remember off the top of my head.

What really intrigues me about this whole deal is that i understand why its not being discussed, and it would be two fold in my eyes: (please correct me if im completely off base)

1. We would be embarsssed to admit we are working off a faulty groundwork, we are simply too far in to backtrack and re-do the math.

2. Religion. Clearly if the bible was right on this and galileo was wrong, what else in the bible must be taken literally?

I tried to understand this whole thing in my head without adding religion into it but i came to the same conclusion robert sungenis did....you cant. If we are actually in the center of the universe and it revolves around us that means we had a creator. I am in no way married to any of this, it only woke my brain up to the possibility so when replying please consider that. I am just a person looking for answers (not sure why, i guess just human nature) and so far of everything ive read that science has offered me geocentrism makes the most SENSE in my head, if not for anything but the principle of occam's razor.

I do know know there is a movie about this called "the principle" but i did not find out about this until after i saw a presentation mr sungenis gave that i watched on youtube, here is the original video i saw:

Part 1:

Part 2: (much more interesting one)

Basically what i really want to know is, these guys really seem like smart people, and a lot of the things they say make sense. Why havent i seen this discussed anywhere by mainstream scientists? Has this been completely and irrevocably dismissed as a theory? Is it possible that some of the smartest scientists in the field actually believe some of this to be true but dont dare ever mention in fear of being shunned by their peers?

All i know is that we dont have this figured out yet, they keep saying we are close but we keep building these massive particle accelerators and really havent found anything to prove our current theories. I know they say the bigger the better and maybe thats true, maybe we need an accelerator 10x the size of the LHC to find dark matter or energy.Hopefully we can keep this discussion civil and i dont get one sentence replies calling me a nutjob lol. This stuff just intererests me to no end, i could watch these videos on youtube endllessly (too bad not much stuff on there about geocentrism, outside of sungenis).