Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I really am capable of critical thinking i just sound like an idiot on a forum because i never paid attention in english lol. What bothers me is that you appear willing to accept Sungenis's idea which has little or no support, and yet you aren't willing to consider mainstream science, which is mainstream precisely because it is supported by a lot of evidence. Its the entire basis of our understanding of the cosmos, how do you even start a conversation to the contrary? Listen dont think i cant understand where you guys are coming from, whats the point in discussing something like this when according to all the literature (minus the ones sungenis points out of course) says otherwise? There is a good reason why (nearly) all the literature presents the mainstream view. (And it isn't because of a conspiracy!) But there are plenty of scientists investigating other possibilities. You can find scientific papers discussing alternative cosomologies, modifications to Gneeral Relativity, etc. What really disappoints me though is the people who must only come back at me with terms you know i likely havent even heard of. Well, no one really knows how much you do or don't know. People will assume a certain familiarity with the subjhect. You should think of this as an opportunity to learn: when people use a term you don't understand, ask for an explanation (sometimes that might be better in a new thread). If i didnt make it abundantly clear i have a limited science background and am only doing my best to convey what sungenis is trying to get across. Some of us are very familair with Sungenis. I have deliberately said what I really think of him as I don't want you to think I am just being negative. (But it sounds like that hasn't worked!) It actually does feel like bullying, but if you and me were in a room together i can guarantee none of you would act this way, its the internet that changes people. I try, particularly on this forum and especially with new members, to only say things that I would be happy to say in real life. I'm sorry if you feel bullied, but I think you are misunderstanding a spirited defense of science and some strong words about pseudoscience (i.e. Sungenis and his ilk). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Ive considered mainstream science but whats taking so long! Again like i said before they all say bigger is better when talking about colliders, wasn't LHC supposed to be the saving grace 10 years ago? Now why are they talking about the next one, does it ever end? Let me be clear tho, with a gun to my head im going with einstein at this point, but i cant rule out other things as well. I think you are taking my interest in sungenis a bit far, cause its very interesting to me right now. The one thing i keep holding onto with geocentrism is that you do NOT have to create multiverses with this model nor do you need dark matter or dark energy. To me its the occams razor, it works on SOOOOOO much stuff in life why wouldnt it work with the universe. And please dont hold back for my sake strange, im pretty solid in dealing with insults and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 But what ive seen of him is that he has spent a hell of a long time working this out... If that were so, then he would be able to publish his ideas in a scientific journal. So he hasn't been working out the science, he has been working out how to mislead people. Why would a dude spend so much time and energy on something when its likely he will never be widely accepted? Lots of people do this. Einstein spent some years working on the theory of relativity (and discussing it in small groups of friends and colleagues). He couldn't know it would be accpeted until it had been tested. So one of the first things he did was some calculations which could be tested (by observing an eclipse of the sun). You could even go as far as saying he is sabotaging himself.....but for what reason, he believes it! Believing you are right is a great motivation but it is not enough by itself in science. It is a bit like all those celebrity talent shows, at the initial auditions, you see distraught teenagers saying things like, "I don't know why I was rejected when this is so important to me." It's because you can't fricking sing! Similarly, if Sungenis had evidence rather than just faith, he might be able to get somewhere. Sadly, his faith blinds him to the evidence. (By the way, one of the principle people behind the big bang theory was a physicist, astronomer and Roman Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. So faith doesn't have to get int he way of science.) Again im not subscribed to anything right now That si sounding less and less plasuible. but when i see a dude like sungenis with all that passion time and hard work for what amounts to a hill of beans, i respect that. Hang around on science forums for a while and see all the people who come along with their wacky personal theories. One of the repeating tropes is "I have been working on this for 30 years" (just think how much science they could have learned in that time). They also stress how important tier "unique" insight is (although it is usually just the same old tosh that comes up repeatedly). Quite a few people who have replied to this thread have said its been disproven time and time again, but i still havent seen the concrete evidence that i need to say "ok there it is, sungenis is full of shit". What is it about "the same is true of every point in the universe" that doesn't make sense? Ive considered mainstream science but whats taking so long! In what sense? Science makes continual progress with occasional exciting paradigm shifts. (There have been several of those just in my lifetime.) Again like i said before they all say bigger is better when talking about colliders, wasn't LHC supposed to be the saving grace 10 years ago? Now why are they talking about the next one, does it ever end? A huge amount has been learnt from the LHC (but don't forget that there are masses of other research projects going on at CERN and elsewhere). And no, science doesn't end. That is what makes it so exciting. The one thing i keep holding onto with geocentrism is that you do NOT have to create multiverses with this model You do not have to create multiverses with mainstream cosmology. I don't know where you get that idea from. nor do you need dark matter or dark energy. Neither of those sound plausible. It should be easy for Sungenis or someone to provide a mathmatical proof of that. But I can't see how just changing the coordinate system changes Newtonian gravity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 But what ive seen of him is that he has spent a hell of a long time working this out, and talks to small groups of people cause he enjoys doing it, he does not seem like he is trying to trick people he just wants to be heard. Why would a dude spend so much time and energy on something when its likely he will never be widely accepted? You could even go as far as saying he is sabotaging himself.....but for what reason, he believes it! That's one of the big questions. Why indeed? Some people get so caught up in an idea that they get emotionally attached and are in denial about it being wrong. Let me be clear tho, with a gun to my head im going with einstein at this point, but i cant rule out other things as well. I think you are taking my interest in sungenis a bit far, cause its very interesting to me right now. The one thing i keep holding onto with geocentrism is that you do NOT have to create multiverses with this model nor do you need dark matter or dark energy. To me its the occams razor, it works on SOOOOOO much stuff in life why wouldnt it work with the universe. People that are more familiar with the science CAN rule this things out. Some of those things have been presented to you here. Geocentrism has nothing to do with multiverses AFAIK, and expansion and acceleration do not go away with its adoption, so you still have a problem in requiring dark energy. Maybe you get rid of dark matter, at the expense of orders of magnitude more problems. e.g. how can other galaxies even exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote). Rotation: the Michelson-Gale experiment Revolution: change of seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity (i cannot remember exactly why, but i remember this quote). You've already been pointed to Bradley, and I mentioned a Foucault pendulum. Absolute motion doesn't exist, but you can say we have relative motion between objects. Funny thing, though, the relative motion to distant stars changes direction, just like we were revolving around the sun at the speed Newtonian physics says we should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 That's one of the big questions. Why indeed? Some people get so caught up in an idea that they get emotionally attached and are in denial about it being wrong. People that are more familiar with the science CAN rule this things out. Some of those things have been presented to you here. Geocentrism has nothing to do with multiverses AFAIK, and expansion and acceleration do not go away with its adoption, so you still have a problem in requiring dark energy. Maybe you get rid of dark matter, at the expense of orders of magnitude more problems. e.g. how can other galaxies even exist? Icwutudidthar! No, i am no more attatched to this than i am anything else, i just find it exceedingly interesting and am exploring if its at all possible. Also im not sure with multiverses, in geocentrism gravity still exists so i imagine so does quantum physics. But i do know with geocentrism there is no big bang, and there is no need for dark matter or dark energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Ive considered mainstream science but whats taking so long! Please don't take this personally. I think your impatience is the root of your problems with science. Science is like peeling away a jigsaw puzzle stamped from the skin of an onion 100' tall. Each piece is understood best by seeing how the previous pieces fit. Your argument is for a quick fix, a way to toss out all that mainstream studying and just go with what this guy Sungenis is suggesting. I'm with Strange, I think you need to ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss mainstream science with its preponderance of evidence in favor of an untested idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Rotation: the Michelson-Gale experiment Revolution: change of seasons. Thats actually hilarious, this experiment is one of the main things sungenis points to that supports his claims in the video i linked. I wish so much at least one of you watched the videos i linked, just to know where im coming from and what sungenis is getting at. Would make this so much easier to either disprove him, or maybe (possibly?) any of his points are eye openers to people who frequent this forum (im not asserting that would happen, but wouldnt that be crazy!?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sungenis is very convincing in that we have actually never measured the movement or rotation of the earth, if you could link me a study or experiment that unequivocally proves we have that is enough for me. There is no "unequivocal proof" in science. There are better and worse models. The best models we have do not treat the Earth as the stationary centre of the universe. There are all sorts of things that are much, much easier to explain if you do not assume geocentrism. For example, the movement of the planets, Foucault's pendulum, ... Whats funny about what sungenis says tho, is that if you actually were able to prove that the earth was moving, it in itself would disprove relativity Another flat out lie. Has the man no shame? Does his perverted form of Catholicism require its members to lie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Also im not sure with multiverses, in geocentrism gravity still exists so i imagine so does quantum physics. But i do know with geocentrism there is no big bang, and there is no need for dark matter or dark energy. No theory at present requires multiverses - although a few interpretations suggest it as an explanation. Geocentrism cannot explain the movement of Venus and Mars without recourse to epicycles - how "on earth" can it claim to explain galactic rotation if if fails to provide a simple explantion of planetary rotation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Icwutudidthar! No, i am no more attatched to this than i am anything else, i just find it exceedingly interesting and am exploring if its at all possible. I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Sungenis. He's the one who's invested in the conjecture. Anyway, you invoked Occam's razor. Which is simpler, epicycles or Newtonian gravity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Please don't take this personally. I think your impatience is the root of your problems with science. Science is like peeling away a jigsaw puzzle stamped from the skin of an onion 100' tall. Each piece is understood best by seeing how the previous pieces fit. Your argument is for a quick fix, a way to toss out all that mainstream studying and just go with what this guy Sungenis is suggesting. I'm with Strange, I think you need to ask yourself why you're so quick to dismiss mainstream science with its preponderance of evidence in favor of an untested idea? Sorry i didn't mean science as a whole, i am specifically talking about the LHC and how 10 years ago (or more now?) the LHC was expected to solve everything, i remember people saying this back then. Now just recently people are saying no, we need wayyyyy bigger. And my comment "when is this gonna end" i wasnt referring to science lol, i mean when is the larger and larger colliders gonna stop, how BIG do they need to get before people start questioning things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Also im not sure with multiverses, in geocentrism gravity still exists so i imagine so does quantum physics. Still no explanation as to why you think multiverses are need though. They aren't. But i do know with geocentrism there is no big bang, and there is no need for dark matter or dark energy. The big bang has nothing to do with the need for dark matter. And as we can observe galaxies moving away from us (I assume he pretends that is not true) and we can see the rate of that increasing (from our position at the centre of the observable universe) then you need to explain what causes that acceleration: that explanation has the label "dark energy". The observations don't go away just because they are inconvenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Thats actually hilarious, this experiment is one of the main things sungenis points to that supports his claims in the video i linked. I wish so much at least one of you watched the videos i linked, just to know where im coming from and what sungenis is getting at. Would make this so much easier to either disprove him, or maybe (possibly?) any of his points are eye openers to people who frequent this forum (im not asserting that would happen, but wouldnt that be crazy!?) I am not interested in Sungenis. I debated him on another website, I gave him a long(er) list of experiments that disprove his nutty claims, the bottom line is that rotation is absolute, as such it can be detected from within a frame associated to the Earth. He is not only an idiot, he's a dishonest idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sorry i didn't mean science as a whole, i am specifically talking about the LHC and how 10 years ago (or more now?) the LHC was expected to solve everything No it wasn't. That sounds like worse than avergae science journalism (and most of it is pretty poor). But there are also plans for smaller, table-top even, accelerators using new techniques. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 There is no "unequivocal proof" in science. There are better and worse models. The best models we have do not treat the Earth as the stationary centre of the universe. There are all sorts of things that are much, much easier to explain if you do not assume geocentrism. For example, the movement of the planets, Foucault's pendulum, ... Another flat out lie. Has the man no shame? Does his perverted form of Catholicism require its members to lie? Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis, im just a messenger cause yall are too lazy to watch the vid!He touches on both foucalts pendant and goes into detail about michaelson and gale and uses it in his argument. PLEASE i am not saying what he says as fact, i am just noting the evidence you guys are throwing at me and the evidence i saw in the video is the same thing.....how can that be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis, No one is attacking you, I have just pointed out the errors in your claims, whether you are "just a messenger" or a shill for Sungenis, I couldn't care less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 No it wasn't. That sounds like worse than avergae science journalism (and most of it is pretty poor). But there are also plans for smaller, table-top even, accelerators using new techniques. So you are telling me scientists are not already planning a larger collider in the future? Point i was getting at with that comment is when, when is big big enough. If they found dark energy/matter tomorrow id be thrilled, ever since i heard about it ive been waiting and waiting and waiting, it got to the point where i had a bookmarked keywords so i didnt have to type them everyday. Ok sure maybe im impatient ill give you that, but correct if i am wrong didnt we expect to find darm matter and/or dark energy in this current LHC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 I watched a little of the first video. It's way too slow and boring, but I skipped forward and at the ~14:00 mark he claims that every item Galileo used in his defense has been proven wrong by modern science. That sounds like BS to me, but of course the video does not provide any links that one might use to check its claim. (One of the reasons that simply posting a video is against the rules. It's way to easy to Gish gallop through material) Again why must you guys attack me instead of sungenis, im just a messenger cause yall are too lazy to watch the vid!He touches on both foucalts pendant and goes into detail about michaelson and gale and uses it in his argument. PLEASE i am not saying what he says as fact, i am just noting the evidence you guys are throwing at me and the evidence i saw in the video is the same thing.....how can that be! Sorry, but you don't get to play the "I'm only the messenger" card here. You have taken the position that Sungenis is right, and by doing so you have taken the burden of proof as yours. You don't get to sidestep that and make any assertions about the material being correct. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 I watched a little of the first video. It's way too slow and boring, but I skipped forward and at the ~14:00 mark he claims that every item Galileo used in his defense has been proven wrong by modern science. That sounds like BS to me, but of course the video does not provide any links that one might use to check its claim. (One of the reasons that simply posting a video is against the rules. It's way to easy to Gish gallop through material) Ya i really cant expect people to watch both videos, the first one isnt sungenis but his buddy ,tho it also lays out most of what they are talking about. Sungenis goes more into detail in the 2nd, but you get the gist from the first. I know the way i type about this stuff i probably sound like a fanboy for sungenis, that really isnt the case. I just find a lot of the stuff he puts forward as intriguing, and until i find hard evidence (this should exist, either we have measured the earths movement or we havent) i gotta at least keep it in the back of my head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xyzt Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 i probably sound like a fanboy for sungenis Yep. until i find hard evidence (this should exist, either we have measured the earths movement or we havent) i gotta at least keep it in the back of my head. The evidence is in front of you, except that you cannot or would not accept it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty99 Posted February 9, 2015 Author Share Posted February 9, 2015 Two things before i go to sleep: 1. I am not a conspiracy theory type person. I am actually disgusted by people who say 9/11 was an inside job. I dont watch ancient aliens and my tin foil goes to cooking pigs in a blanket. 2. Evolution. I know sungenis is against this theory (duh) but to me ive always taken evolution as fact, even as a kid i thought this and i dont know where i got it because i surely didnt study out of school. I just wanted to make these two things clear, i dont know what kind of perceptions people have but judging by some of the comments i felt that would be somewhat helpful. Yep. The evidence is in front of you, except that you cannot or would not accept it. Feel free to link anything you think would be helpful, michaelson morley experiments seem to be evidence for both sides so im not sure i can accept these lol. Surely, more experiments have been done since then? (genuinely dont know). Anywho, off to bed thanks for the chat and trying to be civil with a peasant like myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delta1212 Posted February 9, 2015 Share Posted February 9, 2015 Sorry i didn't mean science as a whole, i am specifically talking about the LHC and how 10 years ago (or more now?) the LHC was expected to solve everything, i remember people saying this back then. Now just recently people are saying no, we need wayyyyy bigger. And my comment "when is this gonna end" i wasnt referring to science lol, i mean when is the larger and larger colliders gonna stop, how BIG do they need to get before people start questioning things. I don't think anyone who knew anything about science seriously expected the LHC to "solve everything." It has turned up a lot of new information that would have been unobtainable without building it, however. I think the problem here is that actual scientific methodology is not particularly satisfying if you want the answer. Every new discovery leads to new questions and there is so much left to discover about how the universe works and what exists within it. And that's on top of an already momentous body of information. It takes a lot of time and effort to really learn everything about even very narrow fields of science and once you do, there are still more questions that you won't know the answer to and that still need to be explored. It's a lot easier and a lot more satisfying (in some respects) to go with a simpler, easily understood explanation of things that is pitched with confidence by someone who claims that it is a full, complete explanation of reality without all of the difficulties, uncertainties and uncomfortable effort involved in mainstream science. Unfortunately, the truth is that science isn't a monolithic entity made up of people who conspire together to promote, for reasons malicious, selfish or out of embarrassment, a dogmatic view of the world that is overly complicated and ultimately unfounded. Because science isn't just about telling a story about how the world works. We get some nice stories out of it, but that's not the main focus of the scientific process. What it does is trying to figure out to accurate model things, and there is an important distinction between the way that someone like Sungenis tries to explain reality and actually modeling reality. A typical view of science by non-scientists is that we start with a question "What makes things fall to the ground?" and look for an answer "Gravity." What an actual scientists does is more along the lines of "Observing that things fall to the ground, can I drop something from a given height and predict how long it will take to hit the ground?" So you develop a model that predicts how long it will take. Then you drop something and see if your model matches with the result. If it does, you drop something else and see if it still works. Or you drop it from a different height. Or you drop it in a different environment. Every time your model correctly predicts how long it would take for the object to hit the ground, you have a piece of evidence confirming your model. Every time it fails, you have evidence that there is something wrong with your model and need to go look for something that could be causing the error in your result, incorporate that into your model and then redo all the tests to see whether it has become more accurate or not. Mainstream science is made up of all of the ideas that have been tests over and over again, many of which are being continuously tested because pieces of consumer technology rely on the models they were designed around working. To be science, you don't need to merely exain something, you need to have a test that someone can go out and do, with the expected result if you are right that differs from alternative ideas in some way, so that other people can go out and check to see which of the two ideas better fits with what actually happens. When we look at the way that the planets and the stars move around us, it fits much better with everything in the solar system, including us, orbiting the Sun than the Earth. The math behind the Big Bang theory, not just the idea of the Bug Bang that exists in popular consciousness, but the actual mathematics that underly the idea when you get into the brass tacks of the theory, predict certain things, including, for instance, the elemental makeup of the universe. When we do tests to check and see what that elemental makeup is, lo and behold, it matches with what the Big Bang theory predicts. That's how science works. You don't just lay out an idea. You vigorously work through all of the consequences of a particular idea, and then you test each and every one of those consequences to see whether reality matches with it, and it is only when every test of every aspect of a given theory that we can figure out has been conducted and confirmed that it is accepted as mainstream by the scientific community. It's entirely possible to overturn a mainstream idea in science. There have been a few revolutions in physics from people doing just this, but it often requires working through a consequences that no one had thought of, or coming up with a test of some aspect of a theory that nobody had thought of a way to check before. It is pretty much never the result of someone claiming that their idea makes more sense and the truth is being covered up by the scientific establishment. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts