The earth isn't flat

You're right. I'll read it when I get out of work

It is though

I actually think the earth is a cube

If the Earth is a cube, explain this: https://i.imgur.com/x4tSRxv.jpg

dinoearth

Damnit, that's a good point.

I no longer believe in cube earth. Earth is a dinosaur.

Dinosaurs didn't go extinct, they evolved and became the planets!

^There is probably at LEAST one person here who will think this is legit and start acquiring followers who will inevitably go to war with flat earthers....

I totally will be your number 2 on this.

We can spread the word

dinoearth because #flatearth is so last week!

Start a cult and all! This is going to be fun!

I wonder if the entrance to the hollow Earth is the pooper.

Full circle baby!

Full dino! circles are a lie perpetrated by the government to conceal the dino earth!

Could probably loop in lizard people theories to this one

Lizard people are the embodiment of our dinosaur mother.

Praise be to Mother Dino!

Know what I'm thinking?

Mega church!

See we already got one!

You are free to do so, but can you provide any proofs to back that up?

Just as much proof as you guys provide

If you want me to provide proof just ask instead of you sarcasm

Ok. What is your proof?

Given what we know about the laws of gravitation/attraction, I don't think it's possible for the Sun to orbit the Earth (on a larger scale than the Earth orbits the Sun).

Then why do all the orbits go around the sun and not the earth ?

the planets look tiny and far away, but what if that is because they are just tiny, and orbiting us.

When you are standing in an open field and you see your friend walking towards you, they appear small and far away. As they walk closer, they appear to grow in size. Your friend wasn't actually GROWING, it just appeared that way. Same concept with planets and stars.

Seen Father Ted?

"Okay, Dougal, one more time: these cows are small, those are far away."

they are just tiny, and orbiting us.

Explain the orbit of mars.

Mars makes dramatic loops through the air which can be explained because the Earth and Mars both orbit the sun. If it orbits the Earth then it makes zero sense. Its actually part of the reason the geocentric model was abandoned, no one could make it work.

what about this?

That is an animation showing how the orbits of planets would have to work on a geocentric Earth.

It has no foundation in reality other than "Here how it would look if..."

You can get a telescope and see other moons orbiting other planets.

Lets do it like this. Do you believe that gravity is the force that is responsible for motion in your geocentric view?

If you do where do the masses that are causing these insane orbits to make loops through the air exist?

If you think its any other force explain why you think so and where the forces are that adjust the orbits as such.

There are too many holes and your entire arguments hinges on an animation showing what the orbits of the planets would have to be to make this fit.

I would also like to point out another flaw. Look at how much closer and further those planets get. That would be easily detectable.

for example, why can the other three fundamental forces be blocked, stopped, or absorbed, but gravity just keeps on going?

Why does EM have an infinite range?

Why do subatomic particle have no speed limit?

I would also object to the idea that you can block or absorb weak or strong nuclear forces...

Good luck stopping an nucleus from keeping its orbitals without a lot of energy.

As for why gravity only affects things with mass...? We dont know the theory of gravity is incomplete but what you are proposing doesnt match any observation of gravity known.

You are basically making stuff up.

You do realize that what youre asking has answers, right?

Go to /r/askscience and get a concise answer.

Also worth pointing out that all youve done is ask us why gravity is different.

Gravity is a theory and an incomplete one at that.

What does this have to do with geocentrism?

What reason do you have to think the sun is smaller than the Earth? There are volumes of reasons to think the sun is much larger than the Earth, based on radiospectroscopy, fourier analysis, relative measurements of the speed of light, i.e., the Michealson-Morely experiment, among literally thousands of others.

You need to look for a reason, not some child's movie analogy or some feeling you have.

I have built a hypothesis, and I am trying to disprove it via debate

What is your hypothesis built upon? What reasons do you have to suppose the information that exists is wrong? I'm open to the possibility, but you've got to have something other than a feeling.

Imagine two objects, one orbits the other. But from the perspective of the one, the other is orbiting it. Which one is true? There is no meaningful way to distinguish. However, when you have several planets orbiting a sun, you can tell that the planets aren't simply orbiting the Earth by looking at their paths through the sky. (There is an orbit around the Earth but it is complex) But you can extrapolate that they run an elliptical orbit around the Sun.

I agree. But I don't understand how this means that the space program is a lie? I acknowledge that alot of NASA's photos and videos have been doctored or are just cut and paste jobs but I don't see the connection to the geocentric idea.

Dude, all of the bolding and large fonts make you look crazy, you oughta tone it down.

There is no coherent and consistent conception of physics that would actually explain and predict the orbits in a Ptolemaic system. You have to come up with all kinds of crutches (like invisible centers of gravity floating around with no explanation) just to make it make any sense at all.

That's the major problem with Ptolemy's system. Just because you can draw shapes on a piece of paper doesn't mean it's as valid a solution as the heliocentric model which also has a viable model of physics which explains it.

Just because you can draw shapes on a piece of paper doesn't mean it's as valid a solution as the heliocentric model which also has a viable model of physics which explains why these shapes would occur using consistent, universal laws.

Explain this to me economists, please.

Other planets have moons.

Instrument error isn't very likely because, for one, we see thousands of these, not just a few. More importantly is how we find these stars with planets. We don't just pick random stars and look for planets, we predict where planets are likely based on the theorized age and mass of the star. If it was mere instrument error, you could point your telescope at any star and see some indication of planets, but we don't, instead we see the planets around stars that our models predict are likely to have them. Further, different instruments at different locations detect the same planets, at the same periodicities, in the same stars, at the same time. That kind of independent verifiability is really hard, if not impossible, to ascribe to "instrument error."

If the stars just happen to be flickering...what makes them flicker? It seems like an awfully massive coincidence that they would just so happen to flicker in a way that perfectly mimics what we'd expect if they had planets, and that we'd be finding these flickering stars so reliably using a planet model based on the estimated age and masses of the stars. It's a ton of coincidences that all happen to conspire to create the illusion of a non-geocentric universe. It'd practically require some kind of trickster god out there moving all the planets around by hand just to create the illusion of a general, universal system of gravitation.

But, on the other hand, what if the fixed stars had tiny planets orbiting them, in the celestial sphere? would that explain the apparent flickering we see?

Why would every star be a celestial sphere with planets orbiting them...except ours? Why would we be the one planet in a solar system that's orbited by its star, whereas all other planets do so oppositely? An elegant, logical universe doesn't have exceptions to rules like this. The very nature of logic is that its consistent across all cases, it doesn't apply in one way at star A and another way at star B.

the stars ARE flickering

Worth noting that stars dont flicker in space.

Retrograde of mercury?

It would help if the videos were titled instead of just a url...

The videos invent imaginary centers of gravity with no explanation for why or how they exist.

If the earth was the center, then instead of simple orbits planets would have to make crazy paths to explain how we see them when we do. Unexplainable strange paths but the current system explains how we see the planets very accurately.

model

Didnt click the links but also just look at other solar systems its not too hard to imagine those stars are JUST LIKE OURS and planets orbit around them

You didn't "answer it" so much as say "Yeah but what if it's NOT"

Nice work

The Standard Model is currently the most accurate model for the physical universe at macroscopic scales. That includes cosmology and astrophysics.

If you have a better model I strongly encourage you to publish it for review.

The Standard Model is currently predicting an undiscovered planet based on the observed effects on nearby masses.

This is something good models can do: be used to predict outcomes. In fact, the standard model can predict solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, asteroid fly-bys, and more! It's really handy.

Surely your models can predict cosmological events hundreds of years into the future, right?

Hey, if you have a better model, I'm sure everyone would love to see it. That's how science works, you know. The "best" model is the "right" model until a better model comes along. That's actually the entire fucking point of science.

The Standard Model is not completely accurate. It breaks down at small scales. So it's not "right" in the sense that it can model the entire physical universe, but it's "right" in the sense that there isn't a better model (for large scales) yet.

Does that mean there never will be a better model, or it won't get tweaked a bit in the future? No, of course not. As long as we continue to practice science, "right" will get "righter."

But until you can publish a model that will predict the movement of planetary masses, asteroids, Rosanne Barr, and apples with the same methods, you can't compete with the Standard Model.

The way chemtrails appear to be emitted from below the sun and beyond the horizon, exactly as depicted by sumerians should be enough evidence for anyone we're all living a lie.

https://i.imgur.com/w8ZHW1F.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/jD3NQXI.gif
https://i.imgur.com/wQ7n408.gif

The sun has wings! https://i.imgur.com/G2cRg7G.jpg

The size of the universe is as big as the best telescopes can see. The Universe has gotten bigger in direct proportion to the distance telescopes can see.

When Einstein developed relativity he didn't know that galaxies existed, the science community thought galaxies were just more stars.

The size of the observable Universe is just that. It is just what we can see.

It is obvious to me that the total Universe is a lot bigger than what we can see.

In my humble opinion the total Universe is massively bigger than the observable Universe.

There are black holes millions of times bigger than the observable Universe. There are areas in the total Universe trillions of times bigger than the observable Universe that are completely void of any atoms.

Think big, Earth can't be the center of the total Universe. It is just too big for that to be possible.

You asked to be proven wrong. I asked what your reasons are for presupposing a geocentric universe and all you come back with is "what if the sun is smaller than the Earth? How would you explain that?" Which is like asking "What if all men had vaginas too? How would we have kids?"

It's a nonsense question based on a nonsense presupposition. So I ask again: what reason(s) do you have to discount the voluminous amounts of corroborative data for the sun to be much larger than the Earth, for the speed of light to be uniform at 186,000 miles/sec, and for our solar system to be heliocentric?

Do you have any substantive reason whatsoever to discount these theories?

I actually think the earth is a cube

Damnit, that's a good point.

I no longer believe in cube earth. Earth is a dinosaur.

Just as much proof as you guys provide