Those aren't "new ideas". They are dusty old ideas. Your links provide no data, only quotes from long-dead theologians and churchmen. Almost all before the invention of the telescope. I would suggest you move your thinking into the 18th century. If you have qualified for such an institution, I would suggest a basic "Astronomy 101" class.
You are being nothing but rude; I would suggest framing this in a non-derogatory way rather than proving the age-old assumption that skeptics are naturally rude and inept socialites. To respond, to call my ideas "dusty" and "old" is to defame your own scientists. And to say I know nothing about astronomy is rich. As it appears you didn't read; here are a few non "dusty old" scientists after the invention of the telescope: Stephen Hawking's
A Brief History of Time makes it very clear that scientific studies on geo- or helio- are a self-fulfilling prophecy: "…all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe.
There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe."
Moreover, Paul Davies, editor of
Nature magazine, commented on George Ellis's work, stating: "These redshifts are due, of course, to matter flying away from us under the impetus of the Big Bang. But redshifts can also arise from the gravitational attraction of mass. If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! The argument advanced by George Ellis in this article is more complex than this, but his basic thrust is to put man back into a favored position in the cosmos.
His new theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations, even though it clashes with the thought that we are godless and making it on our own." Here are a few more points to show that you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations:
- From George Ellis, a famous cosmologist in Scientific American, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally,” October 1995: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “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.”
- From Einstein and Infeld, The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system: "No absolute uniform motion exists in classical physics. If two c.s. are moving uniformly, relative to each other, then there is no sense in saying, "This c.s. is at rest and the other is moving". But if two c.s. are moving nonuniformly, relative to each other, then there is very good reason for saying, "This body moves and the other is at rest (or moves uniformly) ". Absolute motion has here a very definite meaning. There is, at this point, a wide gulf between common sense and classical physics. The difficulties mentioned, that of an inertial system and that of absolute motion, are strictly connected with each other. Absolute motion is madepossible only by the idea of an inertial system, for whichthe laws of nature are valid. It may seem as though there is no way out of these difficulties, as though no physical theory can avoid them. Their root lies in the validity of the laws of nature for a special class of c.s. only, the inertial. The possibility of solving these difficulties depends on the answer to the following question. Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all c.s., not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? If this can be done, our difficulties will be over. We shall then be able to apply the laws of nature to any c.s. The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either c.s. could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, u 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 c.s."
- Max Born said in his famous book, “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity”, Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345: "…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."
- Sir Fred Hoyle, Astronomy and Cosmology – A Modern Course, (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Co.), p. 416,1975: "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."
So no, you cannot disprove geocentrism based on observations. You are mistaken on that topic, and I think it is interesting that philosophy dictates what model we use and what model we call absurd, regardless of the fact that we cannot prove either of them definitively over the other. We are taught that Isotropy and Homogeneity create the Cosmological Principle, which calls on Copernicus for support: "Observed isotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB),
combined with the Copernican principle..." The Copernican principle, according to the Wikipedia article, is: "named after Nicolaus Copernicus, [and]
states the Earth is not in a central, specially favoured position. More recently, the principle
is generalised to the simple statement that humans are not privileged observers. In this sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle,
with significant implications in the philosophy of science. This is circular logic, and thus, how can one say that scientific study on the matter is not pushed to one side over the other, regardless of the equality of both models? For more sources/papers proving that there is no physical difference between geocentric and modern heliocentric views:
- Barbour and Bertotti, 1977. Il Nuovo Cimento B, 38:1.
- Brown, G. B., 1955. Proceedings of the Phys. Soc. B, 68:672.
- Thirring, H., 1916. Phys. Z. 19:33.
- Lense, J. & Thirring, H., 1918, Ibid. 22:29.
- Gerber, P., 1898. Zeitschr. f. Math. u. Physik, 43:93.
- Møller, C., 1952. The Theory of Relativity, (Oxford: Clarendon Press), pp. 318-321.
- Moon, P. & Spencer, D. E., 1959. Philos. of Science, 26:125.
- Rosser, W. G. V., 1964. An Intro. to the Theory of Relativity, (London: Butterworths), p. 460.
For rotation see: P. F. Browne, 1977. “Relativity of Rotation,”
Jrnl. of Physics A: Math. & Gen. Relativity,
10:727. So, it is as if I asked you to take "Astronomy 202" rather than trying to quote the 'dogmatic' scientific statements of Scientific American. Prayers for you!
