I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct. And please adhere to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later. 1. When you state the question "which one is moving"? ....There can therefore be no assumption of motion first, thus the only logical position to start from is first to prove motion NOT first prove there is no motion......you must start with what you have, not what you do not have... there is no demonstratable motion of the earth external of an assumption of motion first...thus the burden of proof for any motion is on those who claim motion for the earth, not on those who claim there is no proof of motion. since as you just did that since "In regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the case"....or we have no ordinary or intrinsic experience/ knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the car/ universe) 2. All attempts to prove motion have come up short & or non existent....Data cannot be interpreted as demonstrating some imaginary theoretical construct 3rd alternative(STR) first without assuming the conclusion that the earth must really be in motion, is true first..which is what you were trying to prove one way of the other to begin with...(invoking a circular fallacy).......To assume some third option is true ( since the earth behaves stationary at the center thus all the motions must just be relative/illusionary) as the reason why the second option (earth in motion) is realy not false, is in essence to assume the conclusion as the premises for the argument that "proves" it. ........The only two alternatives experiments/ observations have ever had any possibility of logical proof up to any given point in time/history in which they were made, up to the present time was real/absolute motion or no real/absolute motion(to the earth)......There was no real/absolute motion demonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth),............. Thus, we cannot assume some third alternative,(STR) (that all motion including/ especialy EMR is only and all relative and therefore no real/absolute motion), without assuming that is true first..why/...because, that is what they are/were trying to prove one way or the other...and still do even now days.....and that option (relativity) is A. Not only unnecessary external of its own conclusion, (we really are in motion but just cannot demonstrated it becuase all is relitive so no way to measure, thus we must be in motion..!?) B. It is not provable ..(all motion just relative motion with no preferred or absolute reference frame)..even if it were true you could not claim proof for motion of the earth, it can only be assumed within that theoretical construct. C. It's own constructs have been shown to be falsified,..light is not isotropic....a distinction of real v absolute motion can be made in the everyday world thus there is no logical bases for making claim of proof for otherwise in the rest of the world that we can only experience indirectly using the experience of the everyday world as the only logical frame of ref from which to begin to argue from. (Starting with what you have not with what you do not have) 3. All observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double galaxies show concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be observed and measured in terms of accuracy ( by definition of the term center)...again starting with what you have not with what you do not have....no third options can be claimed, that it is all just an illusion without assuming that is true first then constructing some theoretical frame work to explain how that could possibly be if we only assume it is true/ "most reasonable" first. 4. The relative motion of the stars nightly produce an observable pattern ( nightly star trails)....However, annually around the north secondary Northern annual axis of rotation there is no observable pattern that can or has ever been demonstrated to coincided with that supposed motion....The annual patterns are based on an effect that is larger by many orders of magnitude, thus the argument cannot be made that the effect is to small to observe for if it were the case, then the smaller effect would not be observable either.... 5. 1, 2 ,3 &4 being true thus there is only left to us logically evidentiary "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is A.the center of the universe and B.Has no demonstratable motion, .............. This can be and is the only logically conclusion that can be made (A&B) with the available observation and experience, (without invoking circular fallacies using theories (STR) that are only nessisary & or justifiable within the very conclusions they propose to "prove")... However, the converse cannot be logically concluded without assuming the very conclusion that any argument would attempt to prove, as the proof for itself.........ie the is no justification for (STR) external of its own conclusion (every thing including EMR is in only in relitive motion there is no absolute ref frame for motion)..but that was the whole point of the experiments, to see if that is true..to assume it is true frist then interpret the results/data or construct theoretical constructs for such is to invoke a circular fallacy.. ...In short, The data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s) that the alternative arguments attempts to prove ( everything all only in relative motion with no such absolute reference frame) show no such motion as described in a HC/AC or Helio/Acentric universe... Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Dear all, I would like to start a discussion about whether your theory of a geocentric Universe with a fixed non-rotating Earth holds up against evidence. Please hold back your E-mails about all the evidence you see, and let's attack the problem in a systematic and scientific manner. First a few rules: 1) Please keep your replies short, precise and concise. I don't have oceans of time, and neither, I suspect, do you. 2) References to scripture does not count as scientific evidence and cannot be used as support of a scientific theory. 3) The most basic observations in regards to the movements in the Solar system is the movements of the Sun, stars, the Moon, the planets, etc. That they move across the sky cannot in itself be taken as evidence for or against the geocentric theory. In a previous E-mail I asked Bernhard Brauer, Marshall Hall and Neville Jones whether: "When driving a car, is the car going forward, or the Earth going backwards?" They all answered the obvious and correct - that the car is going forward. We (humans) designed and built the cars so we know that. In regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the case - is the Earth orbiting and revolving or is it stationary. So let's find out. I would like to start this discussion by asking you to state the 5 most fundamental reasons that your theory is correct. And please adhere to the rules above - and don't go into much detail - we can do that later. 1. When you state "which one is moving"? thus , there can be no assumption of motion then the only logical postion to start from is first to prove motion NOT first prove there is no motion......you must start with what you have, not what you do not have... you have no demonstratable motion external of an asssumption of motion first...thus the burden of proff for any motion is on those who calim motion for the earth, not on thoes who claim there is no proof of motion. since as you just did that since "In regards to the Solar system we don't know a priori which is the case"....or we have no ordinary or intrinsic experiance/ knowledge of any motion to the earth.. -( we did not make the car/ universe) 2. All attmptes to prove motion have come up short....the data cannot be interpreted as offering some 3rd alternative first without assuming that alternitive is true first...becaue the two alternitives were real/absolute motion or no real/absolute motion(to the earth)......there was no real/absolute motion deomonstrated/ fell short ascribed (to the earth), thus we cannot assume some third alternative, (that all motion is only and all relitive and therefore no real/absolute motion), without assuming that is true first..why/...because, that is what they are/were trying to prove even now days.....to assume some third option is true ( since the earth behaves sationary at the center thus all the motions must just be relitive) as the reason why the second option (earth in motion) is realy not false, is in essence to assume the conclusion as the premisise for the arguemet that makes it. 3. 1 and 2 are true thus there is only left to us logicaly evidentury "proof" ( as so far as anything can be proven) that the earth is 1.the center of the universe and 2.has no motion, ..............This is and can be logicaly conluded with observation and experiance. However, the converse cannot be logicaly concluded without assuming the very consclusion that any argument would attempt to prove as the proof for it self.........ie the is no justification for releitivity external of its own concluisons (every thing is in motion there is no absolute ref frame for motion)..but that was the whole point of the experiments, to see if that is true..to assume it is true frist then interpret data or construct theoretical constructs for such is to invoke a circular falicy.. ...the data taken without invoking the very conclusion(s) that the alternative arugment attempts to prove ( everyting all only in relitive motion with no such absolute reference frame) show no such motion as described in a HC/AC or Acentric universe... 4. all observable mass and all red shift, quasars, double gallexies show concentric shells of whatever centered on the earth as so far as it can be measured in terms of accuracy...again starting with what you have not with what you do not have....no third options can be claimed, that it is all just an illusion without assuming that is true first then constructing some theoretical frame work to explain how that could posibly be if we only assume it is true/ "most reasonable" first. 5. The reltive motion of the stars nightly produce an observable pattern....however, annualy arround the north secondary annual axis of rotaion the is no observable pattern....The annual patterns are based on an effect that is larger by many orders of magnitude, thus the argument cannot be made that the effect is to small to observe for if it were then the smaller effect would not be observable either.... I'll collate the replies in a few days into a list of the 5 reasons that are cited most often in your replies. Regards, Regner Trampedach