Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories

Heliocentric is a good theory but no good for practice. We wear watches on our wrists which aren't spherical they are flat and they put all of these motions into play when we use them. The large hand is the sun, the small hand is the moon on a watch. You can tell all the lunar cycles, date, time, location and everything with a sophisticated watch face. The Geocentric model is being used everywhere.

Need this answer please or where to look!!! 😀 please help folks!!

Under the heliocentric model, would venus still trace a pentacle ( and whatever the other planets do in their own way) is that possible under Heliocentric?

As I'm thinking that maybe another bit of proof.. Because like flower of life is same as when you being made in the womb of you mother.. So as above so below as it's ALL in the Geometric Geometry language of which is "what it is" absolute cosmic truth and anyone from any part of the cosmos and read it as it's YOU, You'niversal language..

Because on a heliocentric solar model wouldn't planets then trace out different things in the sky? IF IT WAS Heliocentric... Because if NOT, then... Case closed!!!!!

I need this answered ASAP and and looking around everywhere haha please help!!!

As I lm leaning towards the GEOCENTRIC

The Geo model you're showing here isn't accurate. In the Geo model, Mercury and Venus still orbit the sun and the sun orbits the Earth. In your Geo model it is almost impossible to account for planet's apparent retrograde motion (if that even exists) but in the correct, current, Geo model it may be easier to account for. Regardless of whether the Geo model is correct or not, the Helio model is incorrect, and has been proven such to my satisfaction. Just didn't want you to be the last horse across the finish line.

Atonomi? what was the name?

what a fucking twat

Heliocentric theory is a lie.

ガリレオの地動説は大嘘
飛んでいる飛行機から地球の自転する動きを観測出来る筈であるが、とても動いている様に
は見えない。地球と大気と飛行機は一体で自転している訳ではない。風は東西南北のどの方
向からも吹いているから、大気は地球に束縛されていない。飛行機は大気の中を自由に航行
できるから大気に束縛されていない。もし、仮に飛行機が地球の引力で大気と共に束縛され
ているとすると、ちょうど、地球に紐でつながれた飛行機を想定する。飛行機は地球の自転
による東方向への慣性力(遠心力による)に逆らって、西方向へ航行するなら、飛行機の推進
力がその分減衰する。時速１６００kmの地球の自転が生み出す慣性力は相当に大きなもので
飛行機が進行出来ない事も十分考えられる。
星座の動きをよく見てみると、二つの円が出来ている。地球の自転なら一つの円が出来る筈
である。これは自転説の矛盾である。
左回転の回転木馬に乗って相手にボールをパスすると、ボールは右カーブを描いて反れてし
まう。ライフルで的を射撃すれば同じ様に反れて的に当たる事はない。これも自転説が間違
いだと言う根拠だ。ロケットの発射ビデオはロケットが真っ直ぐ天に向かって飛んでいる。
地球が自転しているなら、遠心力による慣性力で回転方向へ反れるカーブを描く筈である。

フーコーの振り子の右旋回は地球の自転によるものでなく、天の気が右廻りに下降している
からである。重力も天の気の一つ。地の気は左回りに上昇する。植物のつるが左らせんで巻
き上がるのも地の気の働きである。

コリオリの力は見かけ上働いていると思われる力で実際は幻である。台風の渦が北半球で左
旋回(火が水に勝る)、南半球で右旋回(水が火に勝る)するのは陰陽二つに分かれる原理から
来るものである。赤道はこの陰陽が丁度釣り合った状態である。陰陽五行説では土から火と
水が生まれる。このことにより、地球から太陽と月が生れたことが判明する。
安倍晋三はフリーメイソンの手先であり、如何に日本と中国を戦争させるかを検討してい
る。一番名分が立つのは、北朝鮮の朝鮮統一を押し立てる事である。そこで北朝鮮の駒を
使って朝鮮戦争を仕掛けさせる。すると、韓国はアメリカと日本に助けを求める。日本は
アメリカの命令で自衛隊を朝鮮戦争へ投入せざるを得ない。北朝鮮は中国とロシアに参戦
を乞い願う。これによって第3次世界大戦の火蓋が切って落とされる。それと同時進行の
形として、米軍と自衛隊の工作によって、高浜原発等が爆破され、北陸新幹線もその犠牲
となる。北朝鮮のミサイル・ノドンに見せかけたアメリカ製ミサイルの攻撃で甚大な被害
を被る。安倍は超法規的措置で９条を憲法改正して、海外派兵の道を切り開く。世界各地
でＩＳ(イスラム国)のテロが頻発し、イスラエルとアラブ諸国とで第５次中東戦争が勃発
する。中国等の核ミサイルが日本本土を襲来する。世界が一つになって日本へ攻めてくる。
ロシアは北海道から侵攻し、東北まで雪崩込んで来る。中国は沖縄から九州へと攻め込ん
でくる。アメリカに率いられた欧米諸国の戦艦は駿河湾からの上陸を目指して侵攻してく
る。日本は万が一にも助かる見込みがなく、滅びようとする。まさに滅びようとするその
時に、神風が発動して、超巨大地震、火山の噴火、狂暴風雨、大津波が起こり、すべての
敵を葬り去る。その後に巨大惑星が地球に衝突し、世界中が阿鼻叫喚の地獄と化す。その
後に大神様が地球を作り直され、弥勒の世が顕現する。極楽浄土、天国が築かれる。

I'll buy the geocentric theory if one of you baboons can explain why a star 330,000 times more massive than the earth could orbit the earth. You bird brained jelly fish cabbages.

I rather lean towards what Enoch mentioned in his book.

SAD !!! The earth is flat. Wake up! Flat Earth Book - HEAVEN AND EARTH by Gabrielle Henriet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0ivGxYT_A The gover**t & Pope are all liars because it it easy to control the world when we are left in the dark!!! The antarktis rurrounds us with huge icewalls. Please review the MANY proofs and common sense. I was told over many years as well as you in school & university that the earth is a spinning ball but it is not true.

Fuck Heliocentricity. Still the same stars.

The Fact is the Heliocentric model should never have gotten past Kepler, despite all their observations, one thing remains to be so! and more so now for the past hundred years or so as soon as they detected that the sun was moving and not just an osculating wobble in the center of it all, but moving in a rapid speed in an arch, instead of realising at the point the Copernican/Kepler Heliocentric model was wrong, and the NEO Tychonic Geocentric model was correct, because after all if the Earth is moving then why don't any of us feel that motion? The fact that noons has ever felt the movement and motion of the Earth is a direct violation of Kepler's Laws, Equal sweeping distance, Equal sweeping time! meaning that for the Heliocentric model to be correct the Earth has to be moving faster when traveling from Aphelion to Perihelion, and slower when going from Perihelion back to Aphelion, right there, that is consistent, and constant speed changes, Not I repeat, NOT! a constant rate of orbital and rotational speed, and in and by the properties of Angular momentum the orbiting speed effects the rotational speed the two are tied! so we can't necessarily distinguish which model is correct based on visual observations alone, so employ one of the other five senses, the sense of feel! no sense of feel of motion coming from the earth when there has to be for the Heliocentric model to be correct, simple answer, the NEO Tychonic geocentric model must be correct by default!

That was the worst and most unclear understanding of the universes different models.

how was it proven wrong?

The idea is for those that use math and physics already to verify or discredit the following claim. I am open either way, but please feel free to share this in more ideal forums if you find it is correct.

This is how to understand and prove the earth is not spinning while also proving that the moon cannot be in orbit in Earth's "gravitational field" through use of math and general physics.

To begin, I will be using the term inertia which it is basically like momentum. An objects mass and velocity are relative to a point when observing an objects inertia. Objects that have more mass take more force to noticeably accelerate the mass in a new direction; equally, a smaller object can accelerate noticeably in a new direction under less directional force.

An objects inertia on Earth is relative to its mass and velocity in relation to a point in space at a certain time. It is a common misconception that inertia does not have force or direction; here out referred to as force vector. If you are rotating around multiple points simultaneously, each point of rotation creates a force and force vector.

Centrifugal force (commonly referred to as centripetal force) results as an objects inertia is shifted towards a new path or direction; the force is experienced the way acceleration or gravity is and is thus measurable. When objects are forced to turn, the object experiences the force of acceleration in a new direction. This is centrifugal force being realized and though velocity is a factor, velocity is not what is creating the force. Again, velocity and mass create inertia; an object that has zero velocity or has zero mass will have no inertia. However, an object with mass and velocity will have inertia and thus experiences centrifugal force while turning.

Centrifugal force is measured in Newtons or other conversions which include: slugs, ft/s^2, m/s^2, and sometimes referred to as "G-forces". This is the moment of force that is measured when centrifugal force is exerted on an object and is thus measurable in seconds squared. If you have not guessed it yet, centrifugal force is experienced when Earth orbits the sun and when the Earth rotates around its axis. Earth's moon experiences centrifugal force as it orbits around the Earth as a result of Earth's gravity.

Here are some basics about centrifugal force.

1) An object that is "turning" one way will feel the force pushing them the opposite direction.
2) An object on the inside of a turning mass (like a planet) will feel pressed "into" the planet, while an object on the outside will feel like it is being pulled "off of." (Force Vectors)
3) Centrifugal force increases when the inertia stays the same and the radius is decreased.
4) Centrifugal force is decreased when the inertia stays the same and the radius increases.
5) Holding the radius constant, Increasing mass or velocity (inertia) will increase the centrifugal forces exerted on that object.
6) Holding radius and velocity constant, increasing mass will increase centrifugal force, decreasing the mass will decrease the centrifugal force. (This is how we know the Earth is still)
7) Centrifugal force is felt and measured the same way as gravity or acceleration is felt and measured.

These concepts are important to understanding why the force vectors exist with the strength and direction that they do. Force vectors are kind of like a game of tug of war. If you are playing tug of war with your buddy, one of you will have to exert more force than the other or even though both of you are pulling very hard, nobody will move. If you exert 100 lbs of force towards you <---- and your buddy exerts 100 lbs of force towards himself -->, the overall force vector is 0 lbs of force. >0<

If you buddy calls his buddy and now the amount of force exerted on the other side is 200 lbs <-------- and you have -->100 lbs of force, then the overall force vector is 100 lbs <--.

Force vectors can get complicated, but they can be simplified down to simple addition and subtraction.

A note on gravity and the misconception about how it works in relation to the above concepts. Gravity is constant, but when mass changes, the weight changes proportionately as a function of gravity's constant. Weight is the result of gravity acting on mass; weight is not a force. A Newton is a measurement of force and is the same as the force unit "slug". 1 slug is equal to Earth's gravity and converts to ft/s^2; ft/s^2 is a unit of acceleration. Acceleration is the measurable aspect of force being exerted and weight is the result of the force. If there is no force, no weight is experienced. Look at your astronauts in space during "space walks" if you want to get a visual of the concept. A pound is a unit of weight and a pound, like a kilogram, is a unit of weight measurement. A ft/lbs is a unit of work (force over time) but does not convert to units of force.

Using these values below or values you find on the internet, a centrifugal force calculator, force vectors, the laws of centrifugal force, and the constant of gravity, you can see a few things.

1) First, you can see that the objects on earth that are larger than 4,250 kg would experience enough force from the Earth's spin to become weightless (within Earth's constant and decreasing gravitational field); in other words, the centrifugal force out exceeds the gravitational force pulling down.

2) The closer you are to the center of the earth, the more centrifugal force felt.

3) Objects with large masses would experience the downward pull of gravity at its constant, but going down hills would be more difficult and going up hills easier as the object increased in mass.

4) Large buildings on earth (which weigh hundreds to hundreds of thousands of tons) would have to deal with more centrifugal forces then small objects like humans and ants.

5) Water is dense and would experience forces like gravity and centrifugal force.

6) "Weight" is the result of the total force vectors experienced. If you are standing on Earth, you experience 1 G downward. IF you go into a pilot G force tester, you still experience 1 G downward and the centrifugal force.

7) An object with more mass requires more force to keep it in orbit than an object with a smaller mass. With gravity however, the further from the source, the smaller the force becomes. This should be considered also when calculating for why the Earth's moon could not remain in orbit around Earth at the indicated radius. Also include the Moons pull is around 5.32 ft/s^2, netting an accelerating of 37 ft/s^2 towards each other. (This is if the surfaces touched)

Earth's orbit values.
Velocity 29,722 m/s
Radius 149,668,992,000 m
Mass 22,679.6 kg or greater

Earth's rotation values.
Velocity 464.922 m/s @ the equator (this value decreases down to zero as it approaches and reaches the "poles")
Radius 6,371,390 m
Mass 4,250 kg or greater

Moon orbit values.
Velocity 1023.1 m/s
Radius 384,400,000 m
Mass 7.34767309 × 10^22 kg

1 G is the same as 1 slug or 32 ft/s^2 or 143 Newtons, which is "gravity."

Here is a centrifugal force calculator that uses velocity. http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/centripetal-acceleration-d_1285.html

If you do the math and cannot see how this works, please feel free to ask. But if you can confirm my calculations, please speak up.

Last but not least, here is the reason the sky is blue, just in case you ever wanted to know. https://www.pavilionbroadway.co.uk/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/l/s/lsa_molten_vase_cube_h17cm_pale_sapphire_1.jpg

Thank you for reading, please share if you
agree.

Want to see something cool? Go to google maps and just zoom all the way out so that you can see the night and day.

See how the light is parallel with the line of longitude?

Now watch this clip... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDgUmTq4a2Q

Evidence for God is cause and effect. Cause and effect tells us that all things have a source. Since everything has a source, that means that nothing just exist and that there has to be an initial cause. An initial cause that created what we see would have to be capable of creating intelligence, consciousness, energy, and life since we know these things exist.

An initial source that is capable of creating life, intelligence, consciousness, and energy is the definition of God.

The fact that life requires new life to continue moving forward and that it would stop if reproduction stopped is proof that reproduction had to exist from the beginning and that new life must be constantly created. If you think life is just matter, consider that a body without life still has matter but is unconscious. So even though matter is recycled, life has to be created new every day. Creation happens in front of you eyes every day and when you were born, you received life and suddenly became conscious. That is evidence of creation and since creation is in the Bible and the Bible is authored by God, that is evidence that supports the case for God; so is a flat earth.

Ball earth and gravity are false gods.

well done video guys

Think of the universe being built like an atom. a stationary nucleus (earth) and atoms spinning around it (planets, stars, galaxies). an atom has 8 quantum levels, seven stable. our universe has 7, the 8th is the event horizon (curvature) of a globe (marble) universe. astronomy shows the galaxies are arranged in quantum levels (spherical shells) of a lot of stuff, then nothing, then a lot of stuff, and then nothing. seven layers, the same as an atom. the movement mimics the traverse along a quad acme thread helix pattern. think of the universe movement as that of an engine lathe for cutting threads. the entire universe spins one rotation per day around the earth moving slightly along a helical thread. once the universe gets to the end of the threaded rod so to speak, the axis tilts and the travel moves back in the other direction and tilts back once it gets to the other end. each pass corresponds with each season and the distance of the sun per pass. remember the earth is still not moving or spinning. it is the distance and helical pattern of the bodies around the earth giving the illusion of movement. each year the starting and ending point are off slightly, so this gives the illusion of the milky way (the sun) moving around the rest of the universe. another video suggested a vortex pattern, but we know life is a double helix of dioxyribonucleic acid not a vortex.

Thanks! But you forgot Aristotle!!

I am pretty shocked to discover that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever the Earth is moving. We all have been duped to believe the Earth rotates and revolves around the Sun. This is as shocking to me as when I found out evolution was a lie.

The heliocentric model was pretty much foisted upon us because of academia's atheistic bias and the serpent was likely to be ultimately behind the lie (more on that later). Go ahead and try to find scientific evidence for heliocentricism. You won't be able to. Moreover there is no scientific evidence against geocentricism! What a shocker.

Scientists know the geocentric model is just as "valid" as the heliocentric model:

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance (Hoyle, F., 1975. Astronomy and Cosmology - A Modern Course. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.)

Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is "right" and the Ptolemaic theory "wrong" in any meaningful physical sense. (Hoyle, F., 1973, Nicolaus Copernicus, Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.)

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.” -Cosmologist George Ellis, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally"

"Every experiment ever designed to detect the motion of the earth has failed to detect earth's motion and/or distinguish it from relative counter motion of the universe." -Mark Wyatt, "Is Geocentricism Possible?"

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." -Albert Einstein

"Many competent physicists have acknowledged that, unless we can get outside the Cosmos, we cannot prove either a "Sun-centered Solar System," or an "Earth Centered Cosmos," and a number of competent physicists and others have done a good job of demonstrating the truth of this claim. In the following brief list, not one is, or was a fundamentalist Christian, or Geocentrist, yet, in one way or another, all argued and presented considerable evidence, that the physics is the same whether you choose heliocentricity or geocentricity, and that the "proofs" that the earth travels around the sun are not proofs of that view at all:

Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschrift für Mathematik u. Physik, 43:93

Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Introduction to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460

Thirring (1916. Physicalische Zeitschrift 19:33)

Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321

Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1921, Physikalische Zeitschrift 22:29

Einstein (in general and often, argued that there is no difference whether you choose the sun, Earth, or Mars as your frame of reference, you would still have an "inertial system," meaning you could still shoot rockets and hit Mars)

Brown, G. Burniston, 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672

Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philosophy of Science, 26:125.

Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38, 1.

Nightengale, J.D. American Journal of Physics, 45:376, 1977.

Of the above papers, six of them demonstrated that a geocentric model of the Cosmos explained as many phenomena as a heliocentric one (one with a sun centered solar system). They also demonstrated that all phenomena used as "proofs" of heliocentricity would behave the same in a Cosmos where the Earth was at the center and did not move. This includes the seasons on the Earth, apparent "retrograde motion" of some planets, the Focault pendulum, oblateness of the earth (bulge at the equator), and the Coriolis effect. None of the authors were geocentric Christians, most did it largely as an intellectual exercise."

The only scientific evidence I can find the Earth is spinning is Foucault's Pendulum but that can be accounted for in a geocentric model:

"If one rotates the shell relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell, that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around" - Albert Einstein, cited in "Gravitation", Misner Thorne and Wheeler pp. 544-545.

"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right." - Max Born, "Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications, 1962, pp 344 & 345.p

What geocentricism has over heliocentricism is there has been actual scientific experiments that have shown the Earth is NOT IN MOTION:

1. Michelson-Morley Experiment "Proves" Earth at Rest! The Michelson-Morely experiment failed to detect any movement of Earth around the sun http://youtu.be/CUdaTH3T3Ok

2. Airy's "Failure" was that to observe a particular star he did NOT have to increase the tilt of his telescope when he filled it with water."... (light travels about 1/4 slower through water). To understand this, here is an analogy:

You are driving a car in the rain with a stove pipe sticking up. The pipe is the telescope and the rain beads are light rays. You do not want the sides of the pipe to get wet. If you are still, the rain comes straight down into the pipe and the pipe stays dry. This is how light would behave coming to a still earth. If you began to move, the drops would hit the inside walls of the pipe unless you tilted the pipe to account for the movement. The faster you move, the more tilt is necessary. If you put a fan at the bottom of the pipe blowing up, the increase needed would be even more since the drops would travel through the pipe more slowly. With a moving earth, you'd likewise have to tilt the telescope or the light would hit the sides. The water in the scope acted as the fan, which would necessitate leaning the pipe/telescope more than an empty one.

Airy found that the light passed through the water filled telescope at the same angle as an empty one. Oops, that would indicate the earth was still. If the earth was moving he should have to tile the telescope more."

This animation demonstrates what happens, proves that the Earth is stationary and therefore at the centre of the universe - as the Bible maintains. http://youtu.be/87M2i61N1cU

3. The Michelson-Gale experiment."This detected the aether passing the surface of the earth with an accuracy of 2% of the speed of the daily rotation of the earth! Thus, the Michelson-Morely experiment detected no movement of the earth around the sun, yet the Michelson-Gale experiment measured the earth's rotation (or the aether's rotation around the earth!) to within 2%! This surely speaks volumes for geocentricity."

4. The Sagnac experiment http://youtu.be/SWmlimH7laY "(c) The Sagnac experiment (Reference - Comptes Rendus 1913 v157 p 708-710 and 1410-3) Sagnac rotated a table complete with light and mirrors with the light being passed in opposite directions around the table between the mirrors. He detected the movement of the table by the movement of the interference fringes on the target where they were recombined. This proved that there IS an aether that the light has to pass through and this completely destroys Einstein's theory of Relativity that says there is no aether. It is for this reason that this experiment is completely ignored by scientists. More recently Kantor has found the same result with similar apparatus."

"All these experiments are never taught at universities, so consequently, scientists, including most Christian creationists, are ignorant of this evidence for geocentricity."

You can Google these experiments.One may find it interesting to read about them and about their efforts to explain away the findings (such as using ad hoc explanations) and to suppress the findings. The implications of an immobile Earth would surely weaken the atheist worldview which permeates the science community.

Now let's go over problems/questions I have asked heliocentric believers on the internet if the Earth is really rotating and the atmosphere with it. Thus far I've not received any satisfactory answers:

If the atmosphere is rotating with the Earth at 1,000 mph, do you actually believe clouds are moving faster than 1,000 mph at the opposite direction of the earth's supposed spin?

You don't think it is odd the wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second and sometimes clouds moving at different directions in the same area of the sky? For instance, observe a stratum of clouds going for hours together in a direction the very opposite to that in which the earth is supposed to be moving and sometimes you can see different layers of stratum of clouds moving south- north direction and the other moving in a west-east direction. It gets more complicated than that, different strata may be seen not only moving in different directions but, at the same time, moving with different velocities; some floating rapidly and uniformly, and others passing gently along, sometimes becoming stationary, then starting fitfully into motion, and often standing still for minutes together.

If the atmosphere is rotating with the earth it would mean that the air is moving at the same speed as the part of the Earth that it is next to. Thus, the air at Quito, Ecuador is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, Norway.

But if the air at Quito is moving twice as fast as the air at Oslo, that would create the following “problems” that are not supported by reality:

An airplane that took off from Oslo on a clear day, heading west, would be going into a headwind of about 834.9 km/hr (519 mph). Thus, it would need to travel at least the speed of a fast passenger jetliner to make even a few miles of headway. But if it took off heading east, it would hardly need to be using its jets to travel an expected distance for the time it was airborne. Why isn't this the case?

Also why is the atmosphere spinning together with the earth? If the gravitational force would be so great to be able to pull the atmosphere together with the earth then how come the little birds are able to fly?? Or the bugs for that matter??

Supposedly the Earth is moving at 1,000 + 67,000 + 500,000 + 670,000,000 mph through space, and somehow all these centrifugal, gravitational, and inertial forces cancel out perfectly so that standing on Earth we experience none of it, can you explain how that is so?

Knowing the heliocentric model is no more "valid" than the geocentric model and the geocentric model having actual scientific experiments providing evidence for it unlike the heliocentric model does, that make you reconsider the Earth is moving?

How will it change your worldview if you come to the belief that the Earth was immobile?

Would that make you consider that there is a Designer?

The Geocentric theory has never been proven wrong. Einstein has stated that both Geocentric and Heliocentric theories are both valid.

Geocentric and Heliocentric Theories

About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery

Comments