Win / Conspiracies
Conspiracies
Communities Topics Log In Sign Up
Sign In
Hot
All Posts
Settings
All
Profile
Saved
Upvoted
Hidden
Messages

Your Communities

General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
News
Changelogs

More Communities

frenworld
OhTwitter
MillionDollarExtreme
NoNewNormal
Ladies
Conspiracies
GreatAwakening
IP2Always
GameDev
ParallelSociety
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
Content Policy
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES • All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Conspiracies Conspiracy Theories & Facts
hot new rising top

Sign In or Create an Account

2
The biggest argument Heliocentrism has against Plane geocentricism (Flat earthers) is that they don't have a working model of the universe. Meanwhile mainstream scientism is on the brink of creating a new model cus Dark matter and redshift are no longer accepted lmao TLDR outer space is fake and gay (media.scored.co)
posted 1 year ago by BladesLastBottle 1 year ago by BladesLastBottle +3 / -6
34 comments share
34 comments share save hide report block hide replies
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (34)
sorted by:
▲ 2 ▼
– Graphenium 2 points 1 year ago +2 / -0

Hey duder,

Redshift and expansion are intrinsically linked, yes?

Yeah, our best evidence for the inflation/expansion of spacetime is the fact that we observe every galaxy receding away from our respective (as I’m sure you know, things travelling “away” from you are redshifted, things travelling toward you are blueshifted) indicating that either the Milky Way galaxy really is in the center of the universe (basically geocentrism ) or that perhaps there’s “no such thing” as the center of the universe, and everything is receding from everything else which is the standard interpretation of the data, so-called cosmic inflation or expansion

And I agree, it’s one thing to believe something strongly based on evidence, but so much of science is strong belief based on philosophy, which is to say, people rule things out which fit the evidence but don’t fit their preconceived bullshit way too readily.

I was reading about this yesterday and came across a great comment:

The cosmological models are based off two assumptions, that the universe is homogeneous at large scales and that the universe is isotropic at at least a single point. These assumptions essentially mean that the universe looks the same wherever you are. These assumptions are supported primarily by observation of the CMB. However, the evidence does not rule out a geocentric universe. Indeed, the evidence certainly seems to imply that Earth occupies some special place in the universe. When we combine the CMB observations with the observation that other galaxies seem to be receding from us, there is a lot of support for a geocentric model. It is very easy to think that the geocentric model is the only possible model. However, of course, there is a perfectly good alternate explanation, the one I gave initially, that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. In particular, as implied by this model, any other galaxy also sees all other galaxies receding from it.

So what makes us choose the current model over geocentrism? We appeal to the so-called Copernican principle, which states that Earth is not in some special, preferred position in space. Earth is not the center of the universe. You will also read this principle as "humans are not privileged observers". This principle rules out the geocentric theory entirely.

It is crucial to understand that there is no evidence for or against the Copernican principle. (That is not to say that there is not evidence that supports the principle, but the geocentric model is an alternate model which is also consistent with the evidence.) Of course, there is good reason to believe it. A principle of modesty is also often invoked, since it would be incredibly remarkable if the Copernican principle were not true. But there is no way to decide based on observed evidence. We are using a fundamentally philosophical criterion to choose our cosmological model. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but it certainly does lead to many interesting questions in the philosophy of science.

permalink parent save report block reply

GIFs

Conspiracies Wiki & Links

Conspiracies Book List

External Digital Book Libraries

Mod Logs

Honor Roll

Conspiracies.win: This is a forum for free thinking and for discussing issues which have captured your imagination. Please respect other views and opinions, and keep an open mind. Our goal is to create a fairer and more transparent world for a better future.

Community Rules: <click this link for a detailed explanation of the rules

Rule 1: Be respectful. Attack the argument, not the person.

Rule 2: Don't abuse the report function.

Rule 3: No excessive, unnecessary and/or bullying "meta" posts.

To prevent SPAM, posts from accounts younger than 4 days old, and/or with <50 points, wont appear in the feed until approved by a mod.

Disclaimer: Submissions/comments of exceptionally low quality, trolling, stalking, spam, and those submissions/comments determined to be intentionally misleading, calls to violence and/or abuse of other users here, may all be removed at moderator's discretion.

Moderators

  • Doggos
  • axolotl_peyotl
  • trinadin
  • PutinLovesCats
  • clemaneuverers
  • C
Message the Moderators

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy

2025.03.01 - ptjlq (status)

Copyright © 2024.

Terms of Service | Privacy Policy