>>10311360

one can simply look into the sky and follow the paths of the planets over time. It makes more sense that they orbit the Sun and the earth is one of the planets because once you assume heliocentrism, all of the movements of planets, moons, comets, and so on suddenly have a perfectly elliptical orbit. Otherwise, they make these unexplainable looping kinds of patterns.

Again you can observe it with your naked eye, and track it with a pen and paper, and work it out yourself if you don't trust the pics. But it would be tricky the same way as, lets say, spinning in a desk chair in one corner of room while simultaneously tracking the tip of a blade of a ceiling fan. (Not perfect analogy bc the center of the different spins is different, but makes the point.)

The reason we don't detect the earth moving per se, is the same reason a cup of coffee in your car can stay in the cup just fine while you are going 80 miles per hour.

>>10311389

might be a slide but i'll take the bait if it is because its worth being skeptical about. great minds puzzled over it for millenia. nothing wrong with a bit of distrust for the Mainstream Narrative.

>>10311519

>Because if it was revolving around the sun, due to the tilt of the axis of the earth, you would not get seasonal affects

the tilt is the cause for the seasons. You need a tilt to get seasons. At the poles there are parts of winter/summer where the sun does not set for several days which is further evidence of the axial tilt.

I will watch the stuff you suggested, thanks. I am not familiar with the Michelson-Morely/Gale-Pearson experiments enough to comment on them.

>If you watch the video, he demonstrates that the two cases are indistinguishable.

I will watch it. However this is a similar argument used for solipsism. Technically the case of nothing existing except yourself, with illusions/dream of the outside world, and the case of reality existing and effecting you and everyone else, are indistinguishable. However the second one requires fewer assumptions as per Occams Razor.

The case of earth at the center and a "zig-zaggy" force moving the planets and sun around, requires fewer assumptions than the heliocentric model. I'll definitely check out the film and lecture you mentioned. Here's some additional food for thought that i'm not educated enough about to comment on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_metric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_geodesics

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24841/geocentric-model-in-general-relativity

>>10311519

>The Geocentric model predicts the same orbit as the Heliocentric (or no-center, as is common nowadays) model predicts

Actually, that makes sense. I don't claim that the sun is the center of the Universe, nor that the Earth isn't the center of the universe (seems unlikely to be THE center, given the scale of the Universe, to me personally.) I don't know if there even is a center to the Universe at all, now that I think about it.

But I do claim that the Earth and planets orbit around the Sun, and the Sun ultimately around the center of the galaxy and so on. By orbit i mean that they are free-falling "around" the center of gravity, affected by gravity. It is just a semantic difference to say the earth is going around the sun, vs the Sun is going around the earth from a less "elegant" general relativity reference frame. "Elegant" is subjective but I think an ellipse is more elegant and less "needlessly" complex than a curvy roulette spirograph alternative.

>>10311744

reading now

>>10311744

>However if the earth is rotating, but not revolving, you will not get seasons. That's the point of the dichotomy. That's why the pic you posted doesn't work

Here is the evidence i'd offer for your consideration of axial tilt causing seasons from an Earth-centered perspective, which is the same result as the pic that I posted but it is a real observation and not just an artist's representation. I am just a bit confused on how rotation+orbit+tilt can't result in seasons. It is the exact same thing as stationary+procession+rotation but simply from a different perspective

>I just mean in general relativity, one can set anything as the reference frame for the coordinate system. From that reference frame, one can compute the motion of whatever you want.

Agreed

>Do you see how the Geocentric model can make the exact same predictions

Yes, zig-zaggy was not a good term to use. Pic related for example is perfectly mathematical and "regular" (as opposed to irregular).

Yeah, definitely a mind fuck. But I think it boils down to the fact that The Center can be arbitrarily defined in calculations with the same results regardless. Anything can be defined as stationary if it is defined as the center.

>>10311863

>perspective

Different centered frame of view more specifically, perspective has the wrong connotation because it implies potentially an "opinion" and i simply meant where the observer is situated.

>>10311881

I have to read into those experiments to add any further discussion. Interesting stuff anon.