Quote:
Originally Posted by Saludeen
(Post 2364400)
|
Ah I was right then, you presented your question to me backwards as if I were the one to defend the geocentric model. But really you meant you believe the geocentric model and wanted me to defend the heliocentric model, as yes I do recognize the heliocentric model as the accurate model (to our solar system).
My links were solid links btw, not spam. The first one goes through the error's of the Quran regarding that authors incorrect assumptions by using his believed geocentric model.
The second link shows that they were his own assumptions and not rooted in any known biblical texts. The model actually comes from Greek philosophy, which only the Quran seems to teach, which was also a belief of the pagan moon god religion that islam is actually modeled upon.
The rest of the links are observational evidences that the heliocentric model is not only correct, but actually the model we've used for navigating our solar system and successfully.
Additionally, as I commented for melons, you too can prove this beyond a shadow of a doubt by observing the night sky while using simulation software. That software I linked is open source, so if you think it is just part of your conspiracy theory, you can download the source, inspect it yourself, then compile and run it.
As for your links, you do realize that the stars take a very long time to ~move and is not noticeable over a short time, right? Actually Polaris wasn't always in the polar position (north star) relative to our observational view. This is because the path around our galaxy takes roughly 250 million years. However, Polaris was not always the observed North Star in our sky, but in our history that was once Alpha Draconis, about 3000 B.C. Between then and now, the North Star has moved from Draconis to Polaris (re-designated to), and 5000 years is a considerable small time in the vast distances of space.
But as I said, the correct model is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The model is so relevant to us, and in that it is correct, space travel would be impossible w/o knowing that exact model. We could have never put a lander on mars without this knowledge, among the many other achievements regarding putting probes to where we want them to go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaboo_Cleric
(Post 2364403)
Perhaps you too can find a infamous quote and base your entire naive perception on it , while backing juvenile claims that could be explained in a basic textbook. Followed by claiming your a rebel and against the grain.
I mean shit, who needs relativity when we got Newtons laws lol
|
Me too? I don't have issues with Einstein's theories. I even listed him over Newton on my first post here. I just know better than to get into a long debate with Sal over it, I mean unless I just wanted to as any have a right to do. I mean really, you can trim the tree all you like, but it's still going to be effected by the root of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toehammer
(Post 2364715)
|
Nice vid (I've done this experiment myself at the science museum near UCLA), but there really is no issue of mine to be addressed here. Unless you just meant generally regarding Sal's and my exchange. I just dropped that Time article link and two gifs to see where it goes - back a number of pages. I'm still amazed no one addressed the problems with that second gif, it's actually not the heliocentric nor the geocentric models, but a third model which imo is deeply flawed. They call it the helical model. Within it, the orbits and speeds are insanely wrong, which is even not the most bazaar thing of it though isn't represented within that 2nd gif. It only really shows "don't believe everything you read on the internet" even though the model has gone viral and some people actually believe it. I think the 1/4th of Americans believing in the geocentric model may be accurate, or close to it.
ps and yeah, if someone is intent on rejecting the basic proven model of our solar system, good luck trying to reach them with anything Einstein has discovered ;)
