To: antiRepublicrat
"All GR says is that no one point of reference is preferable over any other, thus technically making geocentrism possible in strictly GR terms." Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Thus making geocentrism and geokineticism physically and observationally equivalent.
"But then theres all the other observation and science that shows geocentrism is false. We have actually had a spacecraft go beyond the heliopause oops, that would be geopause according to you. We have been far enough away from Earth to know for a fact that the Earth revolves around the Sun."
Misrepresentation is possible, or ignorance. I can't tell which is more likely.
160 posted on
09/27/2009 6:23:04 PM PDT by
GourmetDan
(Eccl 10:2 - The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.)
To: GourmetDan
Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Not wrong, two ways of saying the same thing. But GR isn't everything. We have other observations that confirm the Earth revolves around the Sun. We couldn't have sent probes to Mars and the outlying planets if heliocentrism was incorrect.
You are several hundred years behind the science, using the standard creationist technique of grabbing onto a tiny part of established science to say that confirms your 2,000+ year-old view of science.
To: GourmetDan
Wrong. GR says that they are physically and observationally indistinguishable. Thus making geocentrism and geokineticism physically and observationally equivalent. Not really. In order to have geocentrism, you have to invent fictional forces.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson