The 'earth is the center of the universe' argument was disproved long long ago.
Interestingly, no - that was never done. It was originally accepted by the pope on the recommendation by his advisers that it (the heliocentric model) be accepted for purely mathematical reasons (not scientific, or based on any particular observation, proof, or "disproof").
I highly recommend the documentary called "The Principle" on the subject. It is well worth a watch (or two).
Jesus H Christ, you people come out of the woodwork with illogic.
Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies. The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center. Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that. Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic. For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center.
So we are taught, yes. But that does not make it so! Much (if not most) of what we are taught is wrong, just like historically and for the same reasons.
Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that
There is no observational data that fundamentally contradicts a geocentric model. That's the whole point! The reason it is excluded is for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Even with strong evidence supporting it and contradicting currently popular models (such as anisotropic cmb/matter etc.).
Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic.
So you've actually watched it? I didn't find anything illogical, or more importantly - historically inaccurate - about it, though admittedly it is a bit of a catholic (ex-catholic, to be specific) propaganda piece. That doesn't prevent it from being a good documentary.
Again, what specifically did you find illogical? Maybe list a few things and explain what logic they violate?
For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.
The Principle rides upon supernatural beliefs. Those are not provable in any scientific way and they cannot be taken as rational grounds for anything.
As for the rest, apparently you are not a disciplined nor well schooled thinker so this is really a waste. I can't spend time on it. And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls, so goodbye to that.
It is remarkably pro bible / traditional catholic views, but the thesis of the documentary is not supernatural. Even if it were, what we are discussing isn't. There is no supernatural belief in the recognition of the historical fact that geocentrism is discarded for philosophical, and not scientific, reasons. The documentary does a great job showing the historical inception and chronology of that philosophical bias, as well as its impacts today with modern cosmology and cosmologists; which, even when presented with compelling evidence that the earth is at the center (as it appears to us by observation), are so disturbed philosophically by such data as to discard it and continue to stubbornly cling to antiquated models which plainly conflict with such data/observations. Bias is pernicious, and as you say - it has everything to do with belief (the enemy of knowledge, and the possibility of objective study of any kind). Scientists are people too and they always deludedly think "we aren't superstitious (now)" in every age.
Those are not provable in any scientific way
Precisely the point! There is nothing provable or disprovable about a geocentric model. In truth, astronomy/cosmology is largely not science at all. One of the more interesting quotes from the documentary is from michio kaku admitting that in no uncertain terms - astrophycisists do not employ the scientific method - and as such are not scientists nor practice science. They are closer to mathematicians - theorists at best.
In any case - can you not answer my question? What specifically from the documentary did you find illogical, and what logic did it violate?
so this is really a waste.
If you say so. I don't think exchanging and exploring views with others of differing views is a waste unless you let it be. In general, it's called learning.
Besides, if you are "the learned" then sharing your wisdom with the less educated is also not a waste of time! It is the responsibility of us with knowledge to share it with others! Hoarding it while simultaneously maligning others for lacking it is cruel and self defeating/reinforcing.
And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls
The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop - yes, i agree. The actual subject itself, as well as exploring such questions as "what is the true shape of the world, could i be wrong about it, and how can i prove it to myself and others?" is almost exclusively for intellectuals and capable autodidactic students only. It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude, capacity, and bravery to recognize and admit that you could be (and likely are) wrong about a great many things you were taught. The fools and trolls, on the other hand, can only parrot what they were taught and reflexively/mindlessly attack any heretics which challenge their dogmas :(
Interestingly, no - that was never done. It was originally accepted by the pope on the recommendation by his advisers that it (the heliocentric model) be accepted for purely mathematical reasons (not scientific, or based on any particular observation, proof, or "disproof").
I highly recommend the documentary called "The Principle" on the subject. It is well worth a watch (or two).
Jesus H Christ, you people come out of the woodwork with illogic. Anyone who has ever taken an astronomy course knows pretty well that it is nonsense to maintain the earth is the center of celestial bodies. The sun does not circle around the earth, the planet earth is a subsidiary of the solar system not its center. Centuries of astronomical observation data shows that. Deferral to religious doctrine bases things on the supernatural and not the real.
The movie The Principle is absolute crackpot, full of bizarre illogic. For heaven's sake do not take it seriously.
What specifically do you find that i've said which is illogical, and why?
The whole point is it is taught as "nonsense" and excluded as a "maintainable" model on purely philosophical grounds. Not scientific ones!
So we are taught, yes. But that does not make it so! Much (if not most) of what we are taught is wrong, just like historically and for the same reasons.
There is no observational data that fundamentally contradicts a geocentric model. That's the whole point! The reason it is excluded is for philosophical reasons, not scientific ones. Even with strong evidence supporting it and contradicting currently popular models (such as anisotropic cmb/matter etc.).
I am not advocating for deferral to religious doctrine.
So you've actually watched it? I didn't find anything illogical, or more importantly - historically inaccurate - about it, though admittedly it is a bit of a catholic (ex-catholic, to be specific) propaganda piece. That doesn't prevent it from being a good documentary.
Again, what specifically did you find illogical? Maybe list a few things and explain what logic they violate?
I think it worth seriously evaluating and considering - but i agree that nothing should be accepted before your own rigorous critical evaluation and validation.
The Principle rides upon supernatural beliefs. Those are not provable in any scientific way and they cannot be taken as rational grounds for anything.
As for the rest, apparently you are not a disciplined nor well schooled thinker so this is really a waste. I can't spend time on it. And flat earth is a haven for both poor thinkers and trolls, so goodbye to that.
It is remarkably pro bible / traditional catholic views, but the thesis of the documentary is not supernatural. Even if it were, what we are discussing isn't. There is no supernatural belief in the recognition of the historical fact that geocentrism is discarded for philosophical, and not scientific, reasons. The documentary does a great job showing the historical inception and chronology of that philosophical bias, as well as its impacts today with modern cosmology and cosmologists; which, even when presented with compelling evidence that the earth is at the center (as it appears to us by observation), are so disturbed philosophically by such data as to discard it and continue to stubbornly cling to antiquated models which plainly conflict with such data/observations. Bias is pernicious, and as you say - it has everything to do with belief (the enemy of knowledge, and the possibility of objective study of any kind). Scientists are people too and they always deludedly think "we aren't superstitious (now)" in every age.
Precisely the point! There is nothing provable or disprovable about a geocentric model. In truth, astronomy/cosmology is largely not science at all. One of the more interesting quotes from the documentary is from michio kaku admitting that in no uncertain terms - astrophycisists do not employ the scientific method - and as such are not scientists nor practice science. They are closer to mathematicians - theorists at best.
In any case - can you not answer my question? What specifically from the documentary did you find illogical, and what logic did it violate?
If you say so. I don't think exchanging and exploring views with others of differing views is a waste unless you let it be. In general, it's called learning.
Besides, if you are "the learned" then sharing your wisdom with the less educated is also not a waste of time! It is the responsibility of us with knowledge to share it with others! Hoarding it while simultaneously maligning others for lacking it is cruel and self defeating/reinforcing.
The heavily advertised (i.e. funded) flat earth psyop - yes, i agree. The actual subject itself, as well as exploring such questions as "what is the true shape of the world, could i be wrong about it, and how can i prove it to myself and others?" is almost exclusively for intellectuals and capable autodidactic students only. It takes a great deal of intellectual fortitude, capacity, and bravery to recognize and admit that you could be (and likely are) wrong about a great many things you were taught. The fools and trolls, on the other hand, can only parrot what they were taught and reflexively/mindlessly attack any heretics which challenge their dogmas :(