Whether or not the earth is at the center of the universe and we are starting right now Ladies and gentlemen thrilled to have you here for this epic debate This is going to be a fun one folks and want to let you know if it's your first time here at modern-day debate We are a neutral platform hosting debates on science religion and politics and we want to let you know no matter what walk of life you were from We really do hope you feel welcome folks. So welcome thrilled to have you here for this epic event It's going to be a lot of fun and also want to let you know a few things up front if you love Controversial debates if you're sick in the head like us and you love juicy debates that push the envelope Well want to let you know consider hitting that subscribe button as we have many more Controversial debates to come as you'll see for example at the bottom right of your screen We are thrilled that next January on the 8th, which is a Friday We're going to be hosting dr. Michael Schermer, New York Times bestseller and You could say a hugely popular Christian apologist youtuber inspiring philosophy Mike Jones will be debating whether or not Christianity is dangerous and Huge update you guys. We are really excited about this last night. We hit the goal for our Kickstarter We are thrilled so that debate is for sure happening I'd still encourage you to sign up as that's going to help us We're basically right now. I'm getting feedback from people on what we'll actually use We're doing a stretch goal. Basically. We're trying to go beyond our original goal of 2500 which you see there on the meter on the far right of your screen and want to let you know We are now going for a total of 3000 and so we'll be using that for potentially another monster debate We'll keep you updated as I get feedback from others on that So with that want to let you know we are thrilled to have our guests here Oh, and the last thing about the Kickstarter is linked in the description just so you do know and Our guests. I'm very excited about this We've never had this topic and we also have to articulate quick on their feet guests I want to read you a quick bio from dr. Son. Janice. I appreciate your patience with me is I Think I hope forgive me. Let me know if I've got it right that time dr. Son. Janice You're doing well son Janice. Oh, thank you very much. We want to give you a quick biography reading first Robert is an international author lecture debater producer and founder of Catholic Apologetics International publishing a nonprofit corporation dedicated to teaching and defending the Catholic faith He holds advanced degrees in theology and religious studies from George Washington University West Minster theological seminary and oh, this is another one. Let me know if I pronounce is it Calimus International University That's right. Thank you very much. I appreciate that and so do encourage you to check out both of our guests links You have seen that Leo Philius here before we're thrilled to have you back Leo Philius But what I want to do is first is ask guys where we're thrilled to have you Thanks so much for being here. So we'll start with dr. Son. Janice We are thrilled to have you what can people expect to find at your link that I put in the description Which link is that? Let me have some double check It was the one that your secretary sent to me, but I'm gonna double check just to be sure I've got the name of it Well, I can give you you know the rundown of all three of them if you want I've got journey to the center of the universe comm. Yeah, that that has all our science issues our DVD CDs books dealing with Creationism geocentrism cosmology in general physics in general Nothing theological there The other link is Robertson jenice org.com.net and that deals with all the other issues related to my degrees in theology Politics culture Things of that nature you bet. Thank you very much dr. Son jenice and we'll kick it over to Leo He has been here before he is articulate. He's fast on his feet Leo, we're thrilled to have you back. Can you share what people can expect to find? Absolutely, and can you share what people can expect to find at your link in the description below so that would be a link to my YouTube channel and there I I Correct pseudo scientific misinformation Just because I feel that that needs to be done a lot of people in a scientific community actual professionals They either don't do it or they're too technical and too Too formal when they do it So I am engaged in a lot of science education science communication Mainly with a focus on astrophysics cosmology and quantum mechanics I also do a little bit of creationism and intelligent design busting on a good friend of mine's channel The channel would be speed of sound of gravity That's that's about it might do a little bit of politics on my channel haven't Haven't gotten that far yet, but hope I can get get a little bit of politics out there as well You got it. Well, thanks so much and with that We technically usually have the affirmative go first in this case Given that the question is the earth the center of the solar system or more broadly universe It would be dr. Sanjana's however. It's up to you guys if you guys have a preference on Leo going first instead. I Would prefer Robert go first because he is taking he is taking the affirmative if that sparkles with him You bet well Robert the floor is all yours Thanks so much and I've got the timer set want to let you know folks Our format will be roughly 10 to 12 minutes from each side followed by open discussion for maybe about 50 minutes or so on average and then about 30 minutes of Q&A So if you have a question feel free to fire it into the old live chat at modern day debate Thanks so much and Robert the floor is all yours Okay Well, let me just say first of all that I know that when people first hear this topic that the earth is in the center of the universe You know all kinds of bells and whistles go off and they did with me when I was first introduced to this I'm not a conspiracy theorist. You know, I don't believe the earth is flat. I don't believe there's Martians You know, I don't believe in a lot of things that Are tossed around today, but I have a special interest for geocentrism because as we know our history The church can took this on with Galileo my Catholic Church and condemned the idea of heliocentrism or Copernicanism and Stuck with the traditional view of geocentrism. Now the view there was the toll Mayek view That That cat that can be shown to be although close. It's wrong because it puts Morrison Venus in the wrong place and Then we had the tyconic geocentric system come along around the 1500s and what this did was it just inverted the Copernican system instead of having the Sun and the planets go around the earth It had the Sun go around the earth, but the planets went around the Sun and if you know anything about this topic, you'll understand that that's just an inversion and It also developed later into the neo-tyconic view that allowed us to have an answer for stellar Parallax and stellar aberration things like that and They're important because they were used as proof for the heliocentric system at least until Society was taught that the geocentric system under the neo-tyconic model Has its own stellar aberration in its own stellar parallax it can they can show those just as well as the heliocentric system so as the heliocentric system went through phases like when we first had it we had Pythagoras who believed that the center was a big fireball And that the Sun went around that and then we had Aris darkest of Samo's the Greek from the third century BC and He basically has the the fundamentals of the Copernicus system that Was followed before Copernicus came along somewhat 1800 years later and Copernicus basically got his model from Aris darkest and But Copernicus's model didn't work too well because he wanted the planets to go around in circles perfect circles around the Sun and About a hundred years later Kepler came along And made them into elliptical orbits and that got closer to what we see in the sky, but it's still not perfect actually a lot of people Don't know that but it's not perfect But so as the heliocentric system had has has had development So the geocentric system has had developments and the latest model now is the neo-tyconic model It's easy to say it's not easy to explain it, but basically The earth is the center of mass for the universe. It's not the geometric center the geometric center for the universe is the Sun and That means that the stars are aligned with the Sun and Both of them go around the earth Which is the center of mass In order for that to happen The whole universe has to rotate around the earth once per day Now again when people hear that they you know all the flags go up and And they say well, I just can't be usually And I would say probably 95% of the time the person that says that has never studied and Sometimes I like to compare it to the flat earth because although the flat earth is wrong It's not easy to get there Let's put it that way if you've ever studied I wrote a 700 page book called flat earth flat rock Showing that from science from history and from the Bible the earth is not flat. It's a sphere But in some places that's hard to show Okay, like if you're trying to look over Lake Michigan at the Chicago skyline from the other side of Lake, Michigan Yeah, it does drop down 900 feet Okay, but the trick is explaining that the way do you explain it's not because the earth is flat because the air is refracted Okay, so we can you can get to it, but it takes some knowledge of science in order to get to that position It's the same with the geocentrism You just can't come into it with a knee-jerk reaction and say oh, well, that's impossible You know the Sun's bigger than the earth and that means the the earth must revolve around the Sun Yeah, well, that's the way it used to be in Newton's world okay Newton himself admitted that if we include the rest of the universe and the forces that come from the universe We could have a geocentric universe the earth in the center and everything going around it. He admitted that Okay, as did Albert Einstein Mitted the same thing As a matter of fact Albert Einstein said that Newton had a defect in his mechanics because he wouldn't allow the universe to be involved In calculating what the forces are going to be that determine what goes around what Okay, and most people just don't know this I've talked to physicists who are Experts in special and general relativity who don't know this because they never have been taught it But if you read Einstein's actual works, that's what you find And if you read Newton's actual works, that's what you find, okay It was easy for Newton to have f equals ma and f equals gmm over r squared because he can find his model to our solar system and If you do that Well, yeah, I would admit The earth has to go around the Sun If the model you choose is the solar system and you exclude everything else That's the model you're going to end up with But 200 years later a guy named Ernst Mock came along He's the guy that, you know, we name the speeds of jets from mock one mock two Um, Ernst Mock said well Newton cannot make that assumption That you can exclude the rest of the universe. You see in order for Newton's system to work he had to have an absolute and Absolute space was one of his first absolutes he had had and he also had to have absolute time And in order to have that Your universe has to be inert It can't move You can't have any function that's going to impinge On our solar system. You see So that system was the going system for 200 years It was supported by all the philosophers Emmanuel Kahn everybody And Newton became a household name because of that And as I said Mock came along and said well, you can't have Newton's system because you're making an assumption Without any empirical evidence Okay, how does he know that the universe doesn't move? You just can't assume that and then work out all your equations so that they fit your model You have to include the universe and if the universe can move And it's not inert that means it can rotate And if it rotates That means the earth can be stable fixed and not move And so basically you would have an inversion instead of having an earth rotating in a fixed universe You would have the universe rotating around a fixed earth This is what started the whole idea of relativity Einstein when he came along Was enamored with mock His his whole special relativity his whole concept of relativity was based on urn smock and so If you look at einstein's general relativity Which is ironic because we have to go to general relativity to find support from einstein for geocentrism Whereas his previous theory the special theory of relativity invented in 1905 was invented precisely To keep the earth moving when all the experiments that were performed in the 1800s by perego in 1810s by George bedel airy in the 1870s by michael sin warley in 1887 they were all showing the earth wasn't moving And Basically the science community was scratching its head How are we going to explain this because we've believed in heliocentrism since the time of galileo? repeat sake And all of a sudden we have these experiments showing that the earth could be fixed in space Well, einstein invented his special relativity in order to fix that problem And in in special relativity the speed of light becomes constant And therefore the earth can move If he had made the speed of light not constant And allowed the earth to be constant that is not fixed That would be the other solution to the problem But of course we can't have that you see because We're all comparticans. We're all enlightened We've been through the enlightenment and we're all smarter than The guys that came before us and so we have to pick the system That keeps the earth moving and so that means the speed of light has to be constant And that means length has to contract when an object moves Time has to dilate when an object moves and its mass has to increase That's special relativity in a nutshell all created to try to answer those experiments that saw the earth fixed 10 years later einstein invents another theory The general theory of relativity This theory was almost the direct opposite of special relativity because It allowed the speed of light to not be constant light can move at any speed The general relativity theory said that material objects can move at any speed and that becomes important because one of the first Objections you get when someone is confronted with geocentrism is Well, how do all those stars and stuff go around the earth so fast? Well, go look at general relativity because that's what it says that can do That's where I got it from okay Again, most people don't know that Because they haven't been educated That's what the theory of general relativity says Light can go any speed material objects can go any speed. So voila. We have a geocentric universe Okay, as a matter of fact the whole concept of relativity demands That you have either a fixed earth and a rotating universe Or a fixed universe with a rotating earth One or the other And these this whole concept of allowing both of them to have viability Is based on the co equivalence and covariance equations of Einstein's general relativity theory Okay, so if anybody Comes up to you and says well geocentrism is impossible Then they haven't read Albert Einstein's thesis on this whole thing okay So basically what happened was the general theory of relativity Was a complete contradiction to the special theory of relativity. That's another secret. They don't let you know in special relativity speed of light is constant in an inertial frame In general relativity there are no inertial frames They're not inertial and that means light does not have to be constant And material objects are not limited to 186,000 miles per second Okay, they can go at any speed So How much time do I have left a couple minutes or what? You keeping time at all James are you there? About a minute. Okay, so You know and then so here here you come with general relativity. It basically says to us either one can be correct The the geocentric or the heliocentric we just can't tell you which one it is Because our whole theory is based on relativity Not absolutes. You see So if you don't have an absolute you're you don't have any basis to judge. So how do you do it? Well, we can go to stellar parallax Or stellar aberration. Well, no you can't do that anymore Because the geocentric model has shown by the neo-ticonic model that stellar parallax stellar aberration are no longer proofs for heliocentrism Okay, or you can go to the the bulge of the earth. Somebody might say You know where we know that the earth is has a greater circumference that it's equated that it does at the polar circumference Well, you can't do that either Why well because all the inertial forces that are created by a rotating universe are going to create the same bulge of the earth as in the heliocentric system Okay, so basically When you go through all the so-called proofs that heliocentrism has had you find out that they have no proof they have no proof and That's where the bottom line is Okay, so if you have no proof then what are these guys doing? Why are they all saying that they're Heliocentrists and they believe that the earth goes around the sun Well, either they're sticking with newton and forgetting about Einstein okay, or They make their decisions on philosophical preferences Not on not on empirical science And that's where they rest if you talk to you guys like steven hockey about 30 seconds left Stephen hockey will tell you he does not base his decision of heliocentrism and geocentrism On the empirical evidence He makes it by a philosophical preference Okay And that and i'm not even including all the astrophysical evidence that we have now the cosmic microwave background radiation The formation of galaxies in concentric circles around our galaxy all that kind of stuff I haven't even gotten into that yet and time All right Thank you very much. We are thrilled for that opening statement as well as for yours leo So the floor is all yours. I've got the timer set. Thanks again for being here Thank you. Uh, thank you to the audience and thank you to robert for for partaking in this debate should be a good one. Um I didn't know precisely how much of uh, geocentrism solar system wise or geocentrism universe-wise was going to be discussed so i kind of Put both of those into my Into my opening more so on the solar system side than on the universe side for reasons that i'll get too later The first point that i want to make is that and i'm only going back so far to what i felt was the most relevant to talk about Galileo Galilei was capable of making observations that showed that jupiter had moons and that they orbited jupiter and not the earth And in his mind, this was sort of a rudimentary indication that you know What what if the earth and all the other planets that they at least knew about at the time Didn't orbit the earth but all orbited the sun and his his his observations that he made of of jupiter's moons orbiting jupiter were were actually confirmed I think rather quickly. I can't remember the name But it was not very long after that somebody else had made the same observations Galileo also observed the phases of venus like the phases of the moon which Disagreed for most personally and for mostly with the Ptolemaic system Which stated that if venus was between the earth and the sun that it would always appear crescent or like most of it You can't see and it's the term crescent But if it was beyond the sun that it would always appear gibbous or as if it was full in the sky The galley leo observed the transition between all of these phases Which indicates right off the bat that the Ptolemaic model is it can't be correct and that venus must orbit the sun and this Led to what is known as the tyconic model where I believe robert mentioned the tyconic model And that model was soon challenged by johannes kepler And he developed his three laws of planetary motion that were based on a caperna can model The first one states that the orbits of a planet the orbits of planets or the orbit of a planet is elliptical Not not an actual perfect circle Number two a line segment joining a planet in the sun sweeps out over equal area over an equal interval of time And number three the square of the orbital period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semimajor axis of the orbit And his first law which established elliptical orbits Draftically improved the accuracy of our fictions the predictions that we could make about planetary motion And his model served and well documented transit of venus Both of which corroborate kepler's model and kepler's his three laws and his three laws is not at the center of at least the solar system Sir Isaac newton came along and he used his mechanics in an attempt to accurately derive kepler's model kepler's laws He wanted to take the laws of motion that That new net developed that he wanted to see if he could get kepler's laws out of those and he was capable of doing that Which further corroborated kepler's laws and thereby a heliocentric model of the solar system newton's laws themselves were corroborated by numerous experiments such as We we were capable of observing that the oscillatory period of a pendulum is longer at the equator than it is at equator The observation of stellar aberration by robert hook in 16 to 16 seconds one second But right now it's like intense so sorry, but I just don't want it to be the case that you're giving your speech I've paused your time But it's going to be buffering for people and I just want to give people a heads up if they can hear us um Is it cleared at all now or is it still cutting in and out? Strangely, it's still going red and yellow. I'm like confused because it's like really rare, uh What about now? Is it any clearer now? No, uh, it's still red. I'm a little bit baffled. Um So on my my wi-fi network says it's I have a strong connection that is it's not you It's it's on my side It's my wi-fi so obs isn't even getting out so they may not even be able to hear us right now um On twitch or youtube I can check the youtube stream. It does look like uh, yeah, it doesn't look a little real body I'm running a speed test because this looks bad I don't know why but you sometimes it it will like pop in where it's like, ooh It like, you know it dips but right now our our download Our download and upload speeds have like tanked. I'm just not sure what's going on Let me just see if there's uh Yeah, right now we're It must be a little low. I'm assuming Let me uh, there's one other hope you guys. I'm so sorry about this Um, it doesn't usually happen So I'm gonna have to ask if Because I just don't know if it's like reliable Um, sorry folks. I know I totally Um, okay. I think we're back. Okay. So what I want to do is I think we're back to normal it once in a while it happens, but that was insane Uh, in other words, like That was just like we're it tanked for like four minutes straight. Um, It happened last night for like 30 seconds, but Um, I'm traveling so this is as good as I can do right now So folks if you are able to hear me, please do let me know What you are seeing in the live chat and in about 30 seconds. We'll be able to know what they're thinking Um, the video should be back to normal in about Uh, 20 seconds so I'm looking at the feed on youtube, but it looks fairly clear now It's surprising that the video is still lagging. Uh So sorry guys, let me just do another speed test. See where we're at It's still at seven. It's pretty bad Um Strange that's the upload. Well folks, we are going to What I'm going to do is I think we're at least yeah, okay. People are saying it looks good now. I think we're back to normal. So forgive me for that folks and Looks like we're back and so what I will do is give you your time back. So uh, you've got about I'd say about eight minutes. So the floor is all yours. Leo All right, just to kind of recap we went over um, Kepler's laws of motion and how they seem to indicate that the earth is not at the center of the solar system um As far as Newton derived Kepler's laws with his his um, his laws of motion which corroborated Kepler's laws um Just trying to figure out where I'm at my notes here. Oh, yeah, um, it was the the Robert Hook and I 1670 something it was I think in early early mid 1670s observed stellar aberration An aberration is where if you have an object that's moving and you're looking at another object that object is moved in the direction of your motion by a particular An angle that you could represent with say theta or something like that and that that was observed but it that wasn't really fully described until sometime in the Early earlyish mid 1700s. I want to say by James Bradley. I believe it was Who but by explaining how the earth orbits around the sun Which corroborated experimentally a heliocentric model solar system in 1838 Friedrich Bessel measured the parallax of the star 61 signi Which finally truly defeated Ptolemy's model because Ptolemy's model stated that parallax did not exist This also allowed us a method to determine the distance of stars from the earth And it shows us that the earth is indeed moving My fourth point that I want to touch on is relativity Now relativity lends confirmation to the predictions made by isic newton at least to a point and by kepler At least to a point it takes it a little bit further, but it also shows that isic newton kepler We're definitely on the right path such as say elliptical orbits of the planets relative to the sun It also shows that if we use stars as a fixed reference frame We would observe the planets orbiting around the sun not the earth Specifically general relativity easily puts the sun at the center of the solar system because the sun comprises About 99.4. I believe it is percent of the mass in the solar system And general relativity tells us that what gravity is is curvature in spacetime's geometry as the results of mass or energy in spacetime So you could essentially describe the planets as sort of moving within the throes of the sun's gravitational influence The same way that if you put a very heavy ball on a trampoline and then threw marbles onto the trampoline The marbles will orbit that heavier ball This has been observed in literally every single other solar system We have observed in the universe which is dozens of them the planets all orbit the stars Whether it's a single star system or a binary star system because we have observed a few binary star systems that are also solar systems Albeit relativity does lend confirmation to a heliocentric model It doesn't prove it namely because science doesn't prove things One can derive the same observations regardless of whether the earth the moon or even jupiter the pluto Is put as the center of the solar system However, this is not corroboration of a geocentric model But rather of the relativity of measurement that measurements can be made from any frame of reference And still hold validity, but this doesn't mean that the frame of reference Accurately models what's happening in reality to give an example You can say that a car is moving 60 miles an hour past the post But it is just as valid to argue that it's actually the post that's moving past the car at 60 miles an hour Now we all know that posts don't move the car is the one that's moving But either one of those frames of reference works. You'll get the same exact calculations That's part of the reason why it's called relativity Geocentric models are used when dealing with bodies that are influenced by the earth say if we're looking at you know How the moon orbits or how the satellites that we've made orbit obviously the earth is put at the center there But we're not talking about the whole solar system or even the entire universe In those in those instances. So we are capable of using a geocentric model as for the earth being at the center of the solar system That's pretty much defeated by the fact that the universe doesn't have a center Mainly because the universe Asking where the center of the universe is would be like asking where the center of the surface specifically the surface of a sphere is There there is no center of the surface of a sphere Likewise and that sort of gives you an intuitive picture Likewise, there is no center of the universe now many people have argued that well, we observed the universe expanding outward From the earth that it seems that you know, we can look out in any direction and the universe is expanding The same in every direction that is true However, because the the expansion of spacetime is a metric expansion of its scale Not the universe existing as some physical object that's Getting physically bigger. That's not what is meant by the expansion of the universe Because it's a metric expansion of its scale You would observe the universe to be expanding outward from any point regardless of which points you measured it from Which also lends credence to the idea that the universe Doesn't have a center and is also the consensus of modern cosmologists It seems to me that a heliocentric model whether of the solar system or of the entire If you're going to argue that a geocentric model whether it's of the solar system or of the entire universe Just doesn't seem to line up with the predictions that we have made and be capable of confirming with the observations that we make And a heliocentric model the models that we use currently in physical science today Match up with those observations and they align coherently with the mathematical descriptions that we're capable of giving A heliocentric model comports significantly more thoroughly with reality Than a geocentric model does and I would argue that even if by occum's razor alone We should consider the heliocentric model to be the defining model for the structure of our solar system Including the motions of the bodies within it And I will yield the remainder of my time Thank you very much. Leo will jump into open conversation. So thank you gentlemen Especially for your patience with that that chicanery earlier. I don't know what was going on here But uh, thank you very much. The floor is all yours for open discussion There were a couple of things I wanted to touch on the first one was I think you said What was it that you said was the reason for einstein developing special relativity again if I may ask You're muted by the way robert You're muted I don't know if if you have to unmute him there james or if you can unmute himself on Zoom. All right. Oh, there you go. There you go. I didn't turn it off. So I don't know how it got all All right All right, so your question, um, I know that the The nature of the question because some people think the special relativity was invented because of maxwell's equations That is not true And einstein says it himself in his 1920 leiden speech where he said that michelson morally experiment was the basis for a special relativity theory Only then after he tried to answer michelson morally did he go to maxwell's equations and try to make them relative instead of Polar which is what maxwell found So the basis for einstein's special relativity Was the fact that the 1887 michelson morally experiment Showed that the earth wasn't moving through ether If it was it would be moving at a clip of 30 kilometers per second All they could get from that experiment and all the other experiments that modeled michelson morally Was probably about five percent of that So obviously they didn't find the earth was moving around the sun Because it isn't moving at five miles or five kilometers per second Um, that's what I said Okay, so I would say that part of that is correct So maxwell's equations did not work with newtons newtons with with what he had developed because in his model space and time were fixed and immutable And it became completely inexplicable A lot of the interactions, excuse me that happened in electromagnetism Are not they they weren't we couldn't explain them within that so it was postulated that well, maybe there's some this Aether that light is moving through and that can explain it So michelson and morally did their experiments What the experiment was essentially trying to show is that if there is this luminiferous ether out there that light travels through The earth should be moving through that ether And so when you shine a light beam a beam of light off of earth or to the earth There should be some sort of drag that it has in that ether and we weren't capable of detecting that So we knew that that was sort of saying there's got to be something more here and einstein said okay Well, what if instead of space and time being fixed and immutable? They were connected and it wasn't even einstein actually showed that space and time were connected to do a single manifold That was herman minkowski after which the the coordinate manifolds that we use special relativity are named the minkowski spaces And in those once you begin moving at relativistic speeds the manifold actually changes Which comported with maxwell's equations and allowed for a much more thorough thorough description Of of classical electrodynamics at least classical electrodynamics at the time. The other thing I wanted to touch on is Let me comment on what you just said You said i'm out full Okay, so basically The problem with your whole thesis is that maxwell found there were four different equations He had to use to explain its electromagnetism Einstein didn't like that Because he had to use relativity to explain michael some morally So if he's going to use relativity to explain michael some morally he's going to try it with maxwell's equations And then he's going to try to combine four equations into one and say that well It's just an illusion what we're seeing with maxwell. It doesn't really happen that way. It's all relativistic Okay, but that's not what maxwell found maxwell found that the speed of light was constant in ether He believed in ether. Okay The speed of light wasn't constant by itself. It was constant in ether Newton also believed in ether Okay, so yeah, you had a contradiction there trying to explain newton with maxwell But the way to do it was either you said the earth wasn't moving Through the ether because of the michael some morally experiment or you went with einstein You just said well, there isn't any ether and the earth is going around the sun So you have two viable explanations there You have no way of knowing that the one you just described is the correct one Except the math indicates it thoroughly. No, no the math doesn't do anything All the math does is put things in numerical Equations so that one side equals the other you can you can use math to Do that with anything you can do it with a geocentric system Uh, but then you have in corrections in your math that don't allow you to call accurate See that's that's the myth out there. That's the are you saying that math can't ever be wrong Even when it is so like two plus two could equal five. It seems to me that you are no, I'm not saying that I'm saying that you can put numerical numerical representations On what you think is empirical evidence that could be flatly wrong like for example using the using lorenz's contraction formula Lorenz's transformation. Yeah, number one transformation Now what what so what he did was he made up a mathematical equation? To answer why time dilates and and length contracts But he first assumed that lengths can length contracts so he can answer the michael samorley experiment But how does he know that the length contraction and time dilation is the answer to michael samorley? Because we observe the opposite of that is that the earth isn't moving But he didn't like that answer Well, we've actually observed special relativistic effects like time dilation That if it and no no we actually know in our gps satellites If we didn't correct for the time dilation effects over the course of 24 hours your coordinates would be off by seven miles So if if you don't need if time dilation is not a physical effect that occurs in reality Why do we have this observation that seems to indicate that it is? Well, here it goes in our movie the principle We had the guy who went into the gps and analyzed their computer program And what he felt and this is the guy that works for john deere tractor He's dead now. He died last year. His name is ron hatch He has to make these tractors go in a straight line And they use the gps unmanned tractors So in order to get these tractors to go straight not into the ditch He had to go into the gps computer program and what he found was they pre-program them with the sannyak effect And if you know anything about the sannyak effect That's almost the same thing as the michael samorley experiment because they found that light speed is slowed down When it goes in one direction and not the other in a circular frame and so To answer your question The reason the gps can work as if light is constant is because they pre-program the computers with the sannyak correction In other words, they know that light doesn't go the same speed east and west to from west to east Because that's why they had to put the correction in the program um, I've Never heard of that and I will look them up. I've read books on special relativity that I haven't ever mentioned that. Um, I think I feel more there's a reason they don't mind how you spell that though the what effect sannyak NAC Oh, yes. Oh, I have heard of this before. I just can't remember what it is off of my head Let me add something else to it. If you don't mind For further discussion go ahead 1925 michelson did another experiment very similar to the one he did in 1887 He had gale and pierce and s his His workers with him In that experiment he is Uh, trying to find out The rotation of the earth Okay on the sidereal rate So he sets up his interferometer in, uh, illinois in a rectangular shape and he finds that The light beams are going in a speed that confirms a sidereal Rotation of 23 hours 56 minutes and 4.1 seconds Which is exactly the rotation relative rotation between space and the earth Okay, so here's the question. Are you listening? Yes Yeah, I'm listening. Okay So here's the question for you if it's claimed that There is no ether for the michelson-morley experiment like einstein claim a special relativity Then how is michelson getting the Exact sidereal rotation rate between earth and space in his michelson-gale experiment in 1925 I don't know. I've never heard of that experiment. I have to look into it Okay, so you're gonna have to look that one up too. Let's see. Here's a big one I would bet that it probably doesn't overturn special relativity though Yeah, well, you're gonna have to look at it first because I mean if it did I don't think physicists would be using special relativity if anything it overturned That's why they don't mention the michelson-gale experiment You won't find that in your college textbook They might not be mentioning it because it isn't really relevant to modern physics that could also not irrelevant. Okay So then the sagnac experiment isn't relevant because that copied the sagnac experiment You want to go on to another topic? You don't seem to be well equipped to hand Well, no because I'm reading on I'm reading on the scent. There's this study now. I mean you're not studying I'm I'm reading I'm reading on it because that's what I do in discussions When we have technology at our fingertips, this is a debate But you also said that like general relativity contradicts special relativity. I think that's just Patently false general relativity is a generalization of the same thing that special relativity Special relativity and general relativity are the same theory just described in two different manifolds Whereas special relativity you use of minkovsky space In general relativity you use I believe there. It's a form of neolarensia and manifold I think they're called uh Uh, uh a remont remont romanian manifolds or pseudo romanian manifolds that can that can be curved that can be irregular That's really the only difference between them is the the type of manifolds that that we're utilizing to describe The difference is that special relativity is has to have an inertial frame without gravity and inertial forces Do you know of any in the universe? An inertial frame of reference In inertial frame where there's no gravity and no inertial forces. Yeah an inertial frame of reference No, I'm not talking about a inertial frame of reference. I'm talking about That would be special An inertial frame that has no gravity and no inertial forces. Do you know of any in the universe? Yeah, that would be an inertial frame of reference. I don't think we need to have those We don't need to have them. So it's all theoretical Well, of course, it's theoretical. It's a special theory of general general theory Relativity the general theory of relativity only deals with non-inertial frames. Yeah Because it doesn't use it doesn't use inertial motion. It uses geodesic emotion motion because it doesn't make any different kind of motion It uses so either gravity or it does That's one of the main differences between special relativity and general relativity It's the difference between inertial motion and geodesic emotion motion. The reason you have geophysical motion is because of gravity Okay. Well, yeah, it's why relativity doesn't have gravity Yeah, because it's it's not It's not curved manifolds Whereas in general relativity Doesn't make any difference. So the reason you have a curved manifold is because you have gravity. Yeah, that's that's how we describe Right. So one theory doesn't have gravity. The other theory does have gravity. That's yes Okay, so you've got two different theories there. Okay. Well, they're they're actually the same theory just described on two different manifolds No, you can't if one theory doesn't have gravity and the other does then you don't have the same theory You see you're told it. They're the same theory What's because here's what happens when you have gravity and general relativity When you have gravity the speed of light is not constant Speed of light is constant in general relativity. In fact, it is Wait, so the does the speed of light appear in einsteins field equations to see appear in einsteins field equations Yeah, but it's not constant Well, but if it wasn't constant general relativity wouldn't work those equations wouldn't work We provided that to them the Schwarzschild metric Yeah, if you can find it just to a heliocentric view and exclude the rest of the universe Yeah, you can have that kind of newtonian universe. This isn't newtonian. This would be einsteinian No, you can you can have g equals a pi tau and f equals ma and you could join them together in a system But the uh that the here's what the crux of the issue is if you add the rest of the universe einstein has to say that the universe can go around a fixed earth In one day Do you do you agree with that or not? Wait, what? If you believe in general relativity You have to agree that the Earth can be fixed and the universe rotate around it on a daily basis Do you agree with that or not? Well, that would be special relativity that that's no that has nothing to do with special relativity It does just like with the example I mentioned earlier You're essentially saying asking me is there a difference between a car moving past a pole at 60 miles an hour with the pole stationary or The car being stationary and the pole moving past it at 60 miles an hour There's no mathematical difference between those two Yeah, we can do special relativity moving in the universe or the universe moving around the earth The fact that the math stays the same doesn't mean that The other one is true. We still know in like in the first scenario the hypothetical We still know the car is the one that's moving. We still know that the earth is the one that's moving Yeah, so how do you know that the universe is the one that isn't moving the earth is? Because the the universe isn't a thing that can move. How do you know that? Because the universe isn't an object like the earth. How do you know that? Because of cosmology and our understanding of spacetime reality From from science from modern modern theoretical cosmology I'll tell you where you got it from you got it from edwin hubble Who when he looked at the redshift of the galaxies and saw them all with redshift and no blue shifts He knew that the earth was in the center of the universe and he says so it is a 1937 book the observational approach to cosmology He didn't like that So what he created was a balloon universe just with the surface So they put all the galaxies on the surface and then he started to blow that balloon up And that's all the galaxies separated from one another that they saw a redshift from each galaxy That's how you got the big bang theory Okay, yeah, and there's a numerous other You proved anything about an expanding universe. Well, yeah, we have well we sciences improve things But the the the expansion of spacetime is experimentally verified In fact, it's given by Hubble's observations So Also by general relativity see this is the big thing general relativity Actually, it would not work if if spacetime if spacetime was static wouldn't work And that that that time Einstein all of them they believed that spacetime was static It didn't expand it didn't contract general relativity it didn't work So the universe either had to be expanding or potentially contracting But most would have said it had to be expanding this was in 1915 this general relativity was confirmed in 1917 And then we actually observed the expansion of spacetime in 1929 So that there's corroboration there Indicating that this is this is an actual observation that we're making actually what it is is what I just said it was It was he didn't want the earth in the center and then he created his expanding I don't think edwin humble really cared where the earth was at and whether What his personal opinions on where the earth would have been at or is that a completely irrelevant to the observations that he made? Whether or not because it shows the motivation of why he created his expanding universe go read his book He says he says about a dozen times in his book or several times He says a dozen times in his book that we can't have a an earth in the center of the universe So what are we going to do the only thing we can do is create a balloon surface and put all the galaxies on it And have it expand that was his option Well, that was his observation an observation we've corroborated probably hundreds of times since 1929 We've we've literally observed redshift Numerous people have observed redshift does not prove that the earth is expanding There's about 60 Redshift does actually Demonstrate that and the reason that we know it demonstrates it is because the redness is directly Proportionate to the distance that means that physical objects aren't moving in space time space time itself is growing between the objects No, all it means is one galaxy is further away from the other It doesn't mean there's any expansion but the further away the galaxy is the redder it is So what how would you expect that that means that space is growing between the two? No, I can place one object near me and another object farther away from me And they're both going to give me redshift. That doesn't mean the system is expanding Do you know what causes do you what what causes like to redshift in galactic redshift? There could be a lot of things there's 60 different Explanations out there for redshift You're kind of the one that you like heard of one and that's the one that the whole of modern physics since the The 1920 the 1920s has gone with Yeah, because they don't want an earth-centered universe. That's why I don't really think physicists care if the earth is Literally at the center of the universe and not I think they just care about what they're well You'll read their literature and you'll find out I've read their literature Um, and so redshift is for the just for the audience to say redshift is the result of a light Wave being stretched and this can happen like We you could picture the Doppler effect with sound as a train is coming towards you The pitch might go up as it moves away from you the pitch goes down It's the same effect but with light versus sound so The normal thought is oh well the galaxies are moving away from us The reason we know that's not the case is because the further away the galaxies are the redder they appear Which means the further away they are the more redshifted the light is Which means that the further away galaxies get the faster that they're moving or seemingly there The redshift is directly proportionate to the distance well That actually doesn't tell us that the galaxies themselves are moving It tells us that the space between us in the galaxies is expanding the more space you have The more space there is to expand the faster the galaxy will move away from you the more redshifted its light is This has been experimentally confirmed Since it was first discovered in 1929 by Edmund Hubble This is a part of the standard model of cosmology. You might not accept it. I'm not a professional I've read I've done many lectures by professionals on the subject. I've read their textbooks I feel comfortable being within the framework of the consensus of modern cosmology Well, if you any knew anything about the consensus you would know that there's a lot of disagreement out there about redshift Which you know There's not not amongst not amongst reputed cosmologists. I would say there probably isn't Yeah, you ask any cosmologists is going to be honest with you and they'll tell you that there's a lot of different explanations for redshift I have actually asked me just because something is being stretched there could be dust in the that's what Hubble first thought That there's cosmic dust in there that is slowing down the speed of the light and if it slows down It's going to go to the redshift. Okay. That was his first explanation and any rule of that out And that was it was the proportionate that there was the redshift proportionate to the distance Yeah, because he had to have his balloon universe to get away. No, it's just that that's what he observed And the universe isn't a balloon like the universe doesn't have a shape He'll read his book, you know you ought to read his book first to find out what you're talking about Oh, I know what I'm in the book He says that he sees the Earth centered universe because of the redshift You don't want to admit that because you don't like it Go, well, no, I just That's just not what's being said. Oh, yeah. Well, it's not what the experiments tell us Yeah, you're you're just like all the other ones they come in here and they think they know everything I don't I do not know everything. I am far far from an expert on the obviously You don't know enough about Hubble because he said that instead of having an earth centered universe We're going to have a balloon universe But the redshift can support both of them So you have no proof. I think that's you interpolating your particular Explanations are his exact words. I write him in my book. You want me to read it for you? Do you like me to read? Well, I would I would rather read it myself, but I'm probably not going to do that Well, then why don't you go do that? We'll move on to another time What what Hubble what Hubble personally believes is not relevant to the science the experiments that have been confirmed Oh, well, you just said he's the one that formulated it in 1929 Yes, and we've also confirmed it literally hundreds of times since then in hundreds of ways So it wasn't based on what he said in 1929. So make up your mind It was based on what he observed not what he said Well, what he observed is written in his 1937 Observational approach to cosmology Einstein put in a bunch factor Into general relativity because he didn't like that it showed that spacetime would have had to have been expanding But that didn't matter. We still now know that spacetime is in fact expanding So it doesn't matter Science because it didn't fit their personal views But all of that ended up going away because the actual people who wanted to draw science Decided to say no, this is what we're going to go with No, they didn't as a matter of fact Hawking in his 2010 book The grand design says that Um, the redshift that Hubble saw all around him would put the earth in the center of the universe How Hawking yeah, and I I had actually addressed that I actually addressed that and that has to do with the fact of that the expansion of spacetime is a metric expansion of its scale i.e You would look like you're at the center of the universe from literally any point in the universe because it is Outward that you're looking from that point. And so it's going you want to see everything So we could go to the other side of the milky way galaxy 70,000 light years away and it will look like it's the center of the universe. Yeah, I understand No actual center of the universe Yeah, I start explaining it away. That's that's what I was talking about because there's another explanation The other explanation. What is this? The earth is actually in the center of the universe But that's an explanation Well, how come that then if we were to go 70,000 if we were to go two and a half million light years away to the Andromeda galaxy it would look like we're at the center of the universe Because you've never been there. Yeah, we do we know that because of the metric rising that's what you would see on Andromeda galaxy, that's all no, we we know that's what we would observe because of the You don't know that that's what you would observe because you've never we do because of the metric expansion of spacetime which has been thoroughly confirmed where'd you get that from you got that from the observations From actual observation or redshift and where'd you get that? Yeah? Yeah got it from Hubble So it all goes back to Hubble Well, it's not that either the earth is in the center or do you have an expanding universe?  He didn't if he did we wouldn't have confirmed those I didn't say he pulled it out of his ass. I said that he Said this is how we get out of an earth-centered universe. We create a universe I didn't say he pulled it out of his ass Well, it seems to me that you're arguing that his observation of redshift isn't something we've actually observed when it is It isn't because you can't prove it So then how have we well science doesn't prove anything like you you can't prove that Electron's orbit or the nucleus of an atom does i'm not trying to prove it I'm saying this is what we have observed numerous times if it wasn't something that happens in reality Why would we observe it? Observing something requires interpretation interpretation requires a basis for making the interpretation So it's not just basically You're you're acting as if we see a balloon universe out there you don't All you see is light redshifted. That's getting getting redshifted because of spacetime is expanding. No, we don't know that Well, we do you know why it's redshifted, but you don't know that well We do it's because of the metric expansion of spacetime. You can just keep repeating yourself It's not going to prove it anymore Um, so I have a question if you went to any major institution on this planet oxford Cambridge harvard yale stanford and asked anybody in the astrophysics and cosmology department Is spacetime undergoing a metric expansion? Of its scale, how many do you think would say no and how many do you think would say yes? Most of them would say yes Okay, so why do you think that is why do you think that the guys with the phds Who have spent decades of their life studying this and researching this would agree with me and not you? Well, because if you put the earth in the center of the universe that means somebody had to put it there Because it's no not necessarily it could have just happened. It could have just happened by chance. You don't know that An earth in the center of the universe. Come on. Who are you fooling? Yeah, okay Well, if if they're so let's put it this way if there was a planet at the center of the universe And that just happened by chance And life developed on that planet wouldn't they then say hey, look, we're at the center of the universe Yeah, and that would be a lot harder. It could happen without a god. You don't need a possibility that that could happen Okay, great So then even if we granted that the earth is at the center of the universe that means nothing other than that Hey, the earth is at the center of the universe. I can Not be naive it means that the chances of us saying that there's a designer out there and put it in the center Is a lot greater than somebody put it out in the remote recesses of space with not no signpost saying here here you are Okay I think anybody with logical sense is going to admit that But you you yourself just conceded that it's possible that there could just be a planet that happened to be at the center of the Universe and life developed on that planet. It's also possible the sun doesn't come up tomorrow. Okay It's a remote possible. Is it physically possible? Yeah, it is Yeah, that's good. It is physically possible because I believe it is physically possible that we are in the center That doesn't violate anybody at Cambridge or Oxford or Harvard, you know, do you think that the earth is in the center of the universe? Well, no, I mean, can you prove it? Well, no, well, then why do you believe it? Well, that's because philosophically it just agrees with me with my whole understanding of the universe I I would actually argue it's probably more a result of Occam's razor and just other You know experiments that we've done confirming the metric expansion of space time If you want to use Occam's razor, you're going to you're going to observe space time expanding outward from a center Regardless of where you're at. So it's always going to look like you're in the center No, you know, actually the simplest version is to have a static universe that's revolving Rotating around a fixed earth so that you don't have to have an expansion Occam's razor. Where are you going to get the energy for it? You're going to dark energy. You're going to create dark matter You're going to do away with the horizon problem Which is now you have space expanding beyond the speed of light Occam's razor. How many problems with an expanding universe that you don't have With an earth-centered universe where the universe is rotating around it on a daily basis. That's very simple Occam's razor doesn't state we go with the explanation. That's the most simple It states that we go with the explanation out of all the explanations That is that makes the least amount of assumptions while still explaining everything that we're trying to explain Tell me what assumption I'm making that won't allow geocentric universe to uh, that space time isn't expanding Excuse me that space time isn't expanding. Okay. Yours is expanding minds rotating. What's the difference? They're both moving um, well, there's a difference between linear momentum and angular momentum. Yeah It's still movement. I mean what you're you want to be the judge So are you saying there's no difference between me throwing a Baseball on a straight line and me throwing it and it curves This is there's definitely a difference. Ie a yeah, we both agree that there's a difference But i'm talking about movement You're you're you're trying to use Occam's razor to say that my system is somehow complicated It doesn't fit the paramount because it is time or whatever. I don't know what you're talking about My rotates yours expands. What's what's basically the difference one linear one The yeah, the difference would be we don't observe like an angular Momentum, I guess to get say to space time we observe. I don't know if I would say momentum because we were talking about space time It's hard, but it's just speaking. You know, you don't experience a linear momentum. Yeah, we do You don't experience any litter expansion.  No when we observe distant galaxies. They're redshifted in their level of the Here we go back to redshift again. You're trying to Redshift by expansion you can't I must I must be honest here You haven't really explained away the state or given a model that better predicts this and explains how this We get what we see without an expansion of space time You know put a light through a prism. Why do you see red light because it moves slower than the blue light Well, yeah, that's because you're putting it through a medium and different frequencies will move exactly And that's what Hubble's first explanation was the dust in the universe is going to turn it through redshift But if you put if you put light through a crystal The redshift the the redness that you see doesn't change With the distance that you put the crystal away from you. Oh, why are you like like he's like Like I said what Hubble noted was that well, it's not just that the redshifted They're more redshifted the further away. They are in fact, it's directly proportional. Yeah, but that doesn't prove anything So it can't be if you have a galaxy that's Hubble wasn't trying to prove anything if you have a galaxy that's not expanding And then you put another galaxy farther away that's not expanding And you and they both go through the dust of the universe. Which one it's going to have a greater redshift The one that's further away Yeah, that's why why would that be because he has to go through more dust. This light's going to be refracted more But that shouldn't be the case. No, it is the case. It shouldn't be Well, you can have all kinds of inertial forces out there as a matter of fact The rotating universe gives you the inertial forces to make the the light go redshifted But it those kinds of forces wouldn't Redshift light. How do you know that? Because that's not how electromagnetic radiation works Oh, really? You don't think electromagnetic radiation is affected by inertial forces and gravity? It's not An electromagnetic radiation is not affected by gravity No, the whole reason their whole other reason for redshift is because of gravitational effects on light No Yes, well, I suppose Because as light climbs out of a gravitational well since it must necessarily move its t It loses frequency. That's that's how it loses its energy rather than in momentum Yeah, I guess yeah, you would be correct. It would be would be redshift and we can observe that in gravitation Yeah, okay, so you're corrected I thought when you said that gravity effects like you meant like the gravity can slow down light or You know do stuff like that difference whether it's going linear or whether it's going up from the planet The same difference is going to cause the red the redshift of a light. It's the same gravity Yeah, but we we can we can differentiate between Gravit gravitational redshift and expand expansive redshift as a result of spacetime Of course you can because you've invented expense expansive red shift No, it's because there's already there we get two different observations based on those No, you don't you get the same kind of yeah. Yeah, we yeah, we do An object an object or light that's that's redshifting because of gravity just stays redshifted redshift as a result of the Expansion of spacetime is directly proportionate to its distance from us. No, no Yeah, according to the experiments that we've run and confirmed time and again You can say the same thing about gravity the farther the light is from the gravitational source source The the more the effective redshift is going to be so it's the same difference I want to go back to some other stuff. You said we should get off of this because they're going nowhere with it I did actually want to comment really quick on when you mentioned the sagnac effect that doesn't show that light slows down It shows that because of the motion of the the apparatus you have time dilation effects Yeah, I see that's exactly the point You guys throw in time dilation as if it's something proven Well science doesn't there and that'll explain the experiment Why do you keep saying like proof things when I've never once stated that I'm even trying to like science doesn't prove things You just told me that the reason for the sagnac effect is because of time dilation Is that proven or not? It's demonstrated by consistent experiments Yeah, well we can demonstrate their corroboration by the mathematical underpinnings of that Mathematics has nothing to do with it. Okay, you can wait. Well mathematics has nothing to do with physics No, I didn't say that I said the mathematics has nothing to do with the sagnac effect You can make the math By putting the right figures in there Actually If you put the wrenches contraction formula in there. Yeah, you're going to get time dilation But who says the contraction formula is correct The the funny thing is you say that If this mouse would work You say that math has nothing to do with the the sagnac effect. No, I said you can put in Delta pi is equal to eight pi over lambda c by omega dot a so The sagnac effect is literally represented by a mathematical equation my guy You can put math numbers to anything you want to make them work. That's what I'm saying Well, the math is the theory behind it has to be correct first The math is utilized as a method for describing what we're observing No, no, this is what happens you go in there you look at the experiment and you say no It can't be that one light beam is going faster than the other so we'll throw in time dilation to make them balance Well, that's what the math equation to it And then you put an equation to it and you go, oh, wow, look if we put an equation to our theory We don't even know if you're correct or not That's what that's what well a theory by definition corroborates consistently with reality It doesn't because there's other explanations to the same empirical evidence a scientific theory is a well substantiated rigorously tested and repeatedly confirmed Explanation of some observed phenomenon. Yeah by all the elephants in the room nodding their head and saying yes It must be this way because no, that's that's what we've defined it as you know that we get to pick what words mean, right? Humans get to pick what their language the words and their languages mean. That's what a theory is That's why we call it atomic theory. Yeah, general theory of relativity quantum The way to explain the michelson-morley experiment without using special relativity Is that the earth is in the center of the universe it isn't moving? But so you don't like that explanation. Well, no, it's just that doesn't corroborate well with the observations that we make What other observation with the math? Um, what other observations expansion of spacetime special relativity general relative expansion of spacetime You can't use that to prove that the earth isn't in the center of the universe and you know it What we can because what else do you have that there isn't a center to the what other proof do you have? Well, we're not talking about proof here again science doesn't okay Well, there evidence do you have then that the earth can't be in the center of the universe? I wouldn't say that the earth can't be just that we don't observe it to be as far as Observations we've been capable of making are mainly because the universe doesn't have a center And you know that by how the expansion of spacetime the universe will look like it's expanding outward from any point Any point will look like the same unproven Thesis that you have but of course it's unproven Everything you know is based on the supposed expansion of the universe what you haven't proved Well, it's because science doesn't prove things we haven't proven that electrons exist They just don't talk about it then if you haven't proven it But but so science so what you're saying is that we should just not we should just completely ignore science altogether No, please. Please don't caricature what i'm saying Well, but you you said i'm saying you should be open to both possibilities If you want to see the empirical evidence fairly and not one-sidedly Then you should acknowledge that an earth-centered universe can answer all the experimentations we've done Just as well as you're expanding universe cap Should I give as much credence to the idea that two magnets will stick together because of magical fairies as I should to quantum Electro dynamical effects First of all, you don't know what causes magnetism Yes, I do. I wouldn't believe in fairies either I I know what causes magnetism. In fact, I know what causes magnetism quite well It's it's the it's what essentially you get a magnetic field when you put an electric field in motion All right, then explain gravity to me. Do you know gravity is curvature in the geometry of spacetime by the president? You know general general relativity. Yeah, and you know general to be is correct How? because Sir Arthur Eddington and Albert Einstein observed two stars that exist behind the sun They exist so you got the sun It's got the earth the stars exist behind the sun We shouldn't be able to see them But we did we observed them out here because their light was bent by the gravity of the sun indicating that spacetime curve general relativity Well, of course because science doesn't believe light is affected by gravity long before general relativity came along Well, they didn't know they didn't know what light was prior to like And they still do light is the electromagnetic radiation. Oh, that you just put words on it That's okay. So if light isn't the electromagnetic radiation. How can it be affected by the electromagnetic field? Like pull how come how can we polarize it? It makes no sense Yeah, because we don't know whether light is a wave or a particle. That's why well, the thing with that is that Light is a wave and it's always a wave. It's just that we can reduce that wave in this down to Certain standard DV standards deviation. Um, so like you would have Sigma x by sigma p is what is it? It must be greater than or equal to off What is the um h h bar over two? Let's not do that the wave particle duality doesn't actually show that things behave as particles It just shows that we can reduce the waviness down to a certain point. Yeah, let me just tell you this Nobody knows how gravity works. Nobody's figured it out. Yeah, we do There's about three dozen theories out there Wait, hold on You do know that general relativity predicted its space time was expanding which has been observationally confirmed It it predicted the existence of black holes, which had been observationally confirmed Black holes can exist in an instance of uh gravitational lensing, which was observationally confirmed It predicted it predicted the existence of gravitational waves, which had been observationally confirmed procession of the orbit of Um mercury, which we've observationally confirmed literally every Has made every prediction general relativity is made is make a printer has not been a single test The general relativity has been put to that. It's failed my guy. Oh, yes, it has Like what what what experiments what experiments like for the perihelion of mercury Einstein started precession precession of mercury. It's not the precession. It's the perihelion literally pair Perihelion is the the the closest point to this To the sun I believe because aphelion starts with an aphelion. Actually, we're both correct. It is precession and perihelion The Einstein started with the figure that he needed And he got there by by fudging the numbers on the other side to make sure he got there Okay, but my question is about all this you can read about it in my book If the theory doesn't accurately predict reality, then why are the things so you've got some theory and it says well If this is true, you should see these particular effects occurring And you're saying that this isn't true But I'm not saying that isn't true. Merrick mercury does have a perihelion precession Okay, but I don't know that general relativity is the only explanation for it This total nonsense. I'm not saying the general relativity is the only explanation I I don't think I said that once I said that it is the best explanation geocentric stuff Okay, can we get back on the g you had your turn now? I want to go back to some things you said Go ahead. All right. First of all Um, jupiter's moons don't prove anything because Even the geocentric science doesn't prove things. They all have local systems that allow the smaller body to go around the larger There's only one place In in which the entire universe is going to go around something smaller and that's in the geocentric system Everything else is going to work, but it's local Gravitational frame you're going to see solar systems with planets going around them And that's exactly what we'd expect why? Because they're not the center of mass of the universe. That's why there's only one place It's the center of mass of the universe. There is no center one place that the universe can go around What hold on did you really just succinuate the earth as the center of mass the earth that is 1.3 million times less massive than the sun which is a which is like one One what is it like one one octillions or one? I can't even remember some astronomically large number the mass of the milky way galaxy There is no center of mass for the whole universe mass is How do I want to word this it's not that mass is evenly distributed But that we know why mass is distributed the way that it is throughout spacetime Yeah, you don't know squat Okay, okay stick with the newtonian system. Yeah, I am not using Well, please don't charge me with utilizing newtonian mechanics when I'm utilizing the standard model of cosmology Which utilizes einsteinian relativity not newtonian Einsteinian relativity whether you like it or not says the universe can go around a fixed earth It could but that doesn't mean that it is in fact happening. Wait, wait, wait You just said einstein relativity won't allow it. I'm telling you that I didn't say that Huh, I didn't say that I just said it doesn't comport with it very well as well as the earth That einstein relativity Will exclude the earth being the center of mass of the universe I didn't say that in fact. I'm pretty sure I clarified with it then and even gave is it possible Yeah, it's possible. But does it comport? Is it the best? Model that comports with the observations wait a minute You're just saying two different things when we first started this a minute ago You said you're telling me that the earth could be the center of the universe when the sun is so big and the universe is so big And now you're telling me that it's a possibility I was talking about center of mass of the universe that doesn't even make What do you think einstein said the milky way is No, I'm not talking about the milky way. I'm talking about how many times more on the mass in the universe What did he say about the earth in the universe? I don't really think he said all that much He said the earth can be the center of mass for the rotating universe. That's what he said I don't think he said it could be the center of mass I think he said that there's no difference between utilizing keeping the earth fixed and moving everything around it Or the earth moves alongside the difference then between that and the earth being the center of mass you tell me Well, you see you keep saying center of mass um Can you tell me what the term center of mass means Center of gravity center of mass. I think you know what they mean doesn't yeah, so How could the earth be the center of mass for the whole universe when there are things significantly more massive If the universe rotates it has to rotate around a central point And that would that be the most wouldn't that be the most massive object? Which is definitely not the earth No center of that doesn't have to be massive the center of mass is just an ideal point It can be yeah the ideal point In a mass where it's it that that pole that gravitational pull is is centered either for one body Or for a set of bodies so the larger a mass is so if we put a star that's 1500 times the size of the sun Close to the sun The sun would no longer be the center of mass for the solar system That new star would because it's more massive and thereby curves spacetime more intensely Exactly So I if you want to say could the earth be the center of the universe It could be that doesn't seem to comport with what we observe it could be but when you say center of mass That's where even larger problems come into play because let's just let's have a rotating universe without the earth in the center Is that possible? I'm sure under some senses. It could be possible. I don't think Now observe that but if it's possible to have a center of mass for that rotating universe Wait, what the earth where that's you you keep saying say with the earth is at the center of the mass Are we like inside some massive pocket of like dark dark matter or something that's Extending god knows how many light years out We have space and we have stars that fill in that space and we have what we call that Sphere what do you want to call it? That's the universe. So how how can rotates? What's it going to rotate around? How could galaxies orbit the earth when galaxies are significantly more massive than The earth is because you don't know your general relativity. That's why that's why you're asking that question I have a feeling if I asked you what a tensor was you probably couldn't tell me but If you think I don't understand general relativity, you're you are entitled to that opinion Yeah, well, you're showing me that you don't and I know what a tensor is. Okay, but the point here is Einstein by the whole nature of relativity has to allow for both systems And he comes out and says yeah, I have to yeah, but this would be my theory can't tell you which one's correct This would be special relativity. Excuse me. I said this again. This wouldn't be general. It'd be special No, because general relativity deals general relativity Center of masses deal with gravity. Yes, but Social relativity has nothing to do with gravity It wouldn't be the center of mass because the earth isn't massive enough to attract all the other bodies in the universe Yeah, well, there's where you make your other Even even newton would say that's a mistake The object does not have to be massive to be the center of mass the The the the equivalents between Where's the center of mass? Earth the earth being at the center of the universe and everything moving around it or The earth just moving relative to all the other bodies is the results of there being no Preferred inertial frames of reference, which is what special relativity says to give my example again It's it's the same reason why there's no mathematical difference between a car Moving past a post at 60 miles an hour and the post moving past the car It's 60 miles an hour. Those are exactly the same but that But that's not solving our car. That's the one that's moving. I understand that So when my site says that you could put the earth at the center of the universe and have everything moving around it He was appealing to one of the most fundamental tenets of not general relativity But special relativity namely that there is no preferred inertial frame of reference. No Special relativity would never put the earth in the center of the universe because then it would be a preferred inertial frame Not actually no not necessarily the center of mass does not move the center of gravity does not move That's why I said that's why special relativity also says that the earth really isn't at the center There isn't like Is that it would be a preferred frame and that's what he said before in 1905 1915 came when he had to add gravity and then everything changed then we did have a preferred inertial frame No, we don't that was the earth That wasn't true with a special relativity. The earth is not a preferred frame of reference Well, if it's a center of the universe and doesn't move it is the preferred inertial frame And that's yeah, and there there are there are there are no preferred frames of reference even in general relative The general answer just says exactly the same thing. No general relativity says we can't prove We can't prove which one is the is a preferred inertial frame No, it says that there is one Because general relativity is a generalization of You need to you need to read up on Einstein I I've actually read his Relativity the special and general theory that was like literally written by You must have skipped over the part that said the earth could be in the center and the universe rotating around Well, no, I I know exactly what what you're talking about. That was when he was just You know what else he said about that was when he was describing like I said that there are no preferred inertial frames of reference It would be no difference to me saying Yeah, that that car could be going past the post at 60 miles an hour or the car could be stationary And everything around it is moving past the car at 60 miles an hour But that doesn't mean that the car is literally at the center of everything and everything's moving around it It's a demonstration Any frame of reference and the measurements are going to be the same and that gave rise to the the invariance Of the laws of physics in any frame of reference, which is another one of the fundamental tenets of special relativity Yeah, well, they they all went by the wayside when he invented general relativity, sir Okay, well, it didn't because general relativity is a generalization of the same In general relativity is like constant or not curved manifolds in general relativity is like constant or not Is like of course light is constant in special light general And you don't know your physics. You don't don't general. Okay. So then why you're in general relativity or not? No, there's not an ether in special relativity You do realize that if there if there was an if there was an ether special relativity would be wrong because then the ether would be And that is why Dr. William Lane Craig Is a neo lorenzian because he's an a theorist and in order for the a theory of time to be true You have to have a Frame of reflexes I'm telling you what general relativity says general relativity Einstein took back to ether in 1920 for general. No, we didn't yes Okay, let me ask you which which of the tensor equations in his field equations represents the the ether Which tensor equation? Yes That's the lorenz transform. Uh, no the lorenz transformations aren't tensor equations Well, whatever that's a linear Einstein developed from that. Who cares he developed I'm asking you a question. Do you believe that that there the light speed is constant in general relativity? You said yes. Do you believe that there's an ether in general relativity? You said no, and that's false Do you believe that do you believe that material objects can travel faster than the speed of light in general relativity? well No, but that's not general relativity tells us that again, that's special relativity. No, that is not You don't you don't know your general relativity to give to give a brief explanation If you have I'm going to do this with pens because I don't think my arms are going to fit I'm not going to go over the same thing with you. You have you have That's not to interrupt you and I I've been at least trying my hardest not to so please I just want to ask for the same you've got two axes here You say you've got an x-axis and a y-axis So the speed of light would be defined as a 45 degree angle out from these as you begin to approach the speed of light These axes begin to converge so that at the speed of light you don't you just have that that one axis That one axis you actually lose the manifold that you're Mapping things on i.e. you couldn't go faster than the speed of light to go faster than the speed of light Not only would they have to converge they have to come back out and go negative And you the math would just be so far removed from what we observe in our reality that it just wouldn't make sense All right, that's that's a special relativity not generalizations over you obviously don't know general relativity You're trying to I'm by no means an expert on it, but I have a pretty I would argue in the close and understanding of it. Yeah Then you need to go read up on it sir because you don't know it I mean I can give nice nice field equations just from memory I mean g mu nu plus lambda g mu nu is equal is equal to 8 pi g Overseeded to fourth by team you knew and can in fact describe which each of those tensors represents or tensor equations All it shows me is that you studied the equation pretty well, but you didn't study well, of course That's literally what general theory says light is not constant. There isn't either a material It doesn't go faster than the speed of light and I did study the equation You can read a little book here when those centers are when when you study general relativity You kind of have to study the equations because those are the John carol's book space time in geometry an introduction to general relativity He talks all about you know, you've got you got to know what to you know differential geometry all that fancy math stuff You literally can't do general relativity Without the math do you ever hear of Hans thuring and joseph lens? Hans theory Hans thuring th i r i n g Hans I feel like that would probably be pronounced on staring and no, I haven't heard of that Okay, joseph lens, which was his confidant. Did you ever heard of him? I have not have you heard of julian barber and bertati Uh, the name julian barber rings a bell, but i'm probably not thinking of the person you're speaking of barber and bertati wrote a famous paper Showing how einstein's field equations can be turned into a geocentric universe. No, no, I have heard of that I haven't looked into it myself, but I there was an oh god. Who wrote the article Uh, it wasn't nithin seagull. Oh my god. Who was it? Oh, maybe it was paul sutter I don't know there was somebody a phd astrophysicist wrote an article about I think it might have been paul sutter Because I think I read in space. Anyway, and they they they went through obviously very very simplistic for a lay audience Of why that doesn't work. I probably couldn't tell you why off the top of my head I'd have to look it up, but you don't seem to like it when I'd look things up on the fly So I I'll respect you would not do that. Yeah, obviously you haven't read their paper So we'll move on well, I would imagine if their papers were rigorous and peer reviewed and actually overturned They probably would have won a nobody overturned them Well, so then why is not this why is it not the standard model of physics then Because nobody wants it for the same reason I told you before why why do physicists not want it? Why do they care nobody wants the earth to be in the center of the universe? That's why I don't visit. Why don't physicists want that? Why would why would physicists care? Because it smacks too much of god That's well, you wait. Hold on my friend. You do realize that most physicists on the planet Believe in a god. So why would they not want? No, that's not true. No, it is true Now I don't believe that god is less amongst scientists especially physicists than it is with the general population But there are still slightly more physicists and just scientists in general that believe in god than that don't that that is a fact I can cite that is not a fact from pure research center Right now I did the research from the scientific american 90 of the scientists out there the big name scientists are atheists Well, that would be big name scientists. That's not an accurate Well, they're the ones who make the movies to write the books and who we're talking about Well, no, actually a lot of scientists that aren't big names teaching universities are doing research 60 percent of those don't believe in god. So the the odds are not actually I I know Quite a few who are I know quite a few who aren't but I There's yeah, there's a few out there that are yeah Yeah, well, I'm just telling you what I've read in the books from steven hawking and all the other guys They all say well, no that would Make it look like they're a designer was behind it put it in the center Because I can't explain it on the any other way that it got there. That's what their explanation is I don't think that's what they're saying, but like I said earlier you are entitled to your own opinion Well, of course, we're all entitled to our opinion. Let me go back to a couple other things you said because I want to So there's no misunderstanding um, you said the kepler's model um challenged taiko because Taiko didn't have elliptical orbits. Well, there was a guy named rinocchini Who came along after taiko and put elliptical orbits on taiko's orbits and everything turned out just like the keplerian system So again showing the equality between the two systems It was it was actually all three of kepler's laws that don't comport with with a tyconic model And then newton's laws of motion could be used to derive kepler's laws Thoroughly corroborating the validity of both and describing aspects of this reality They both stuck with the solar system and avoided the rest of the universe. That's the problem with both kepler and newton That's what mott came along and told us 200 years later That you can't arbitrarily Dismiss the rest of the universe in your in your equations to see what goes around what? Okay, that's what's starting on this whole kick. We we can we don't need to know what sagittarius a star The black hole at the center of the milky way galaxy is doing to predict the orbit of the moon around the earth But you need to know whether the universe can move or not If you exclude it from moving in your equations, then you've made an assumption Well, that's because the equations Aren't excluding anything. They just don't seem to indicate what you're concluding yourself The equations don't conclude anything. They're what they're the numbers that you put onto your observations And if your observation does not include the rest of the universe, then your equations are going to be faulty That's why f equals m a doesn't work when it satellites up It does No, it doesn't they have to add in the centrifugal and the coriolis force to make it No, like them work to get to more. They're supposed to be like f equals m a the the actual equation Is a little bit more than that and it involves some some calculus and you know Taking taking derivatives and things of that nature. So f equals m a is Generally it's it's like if you if anybody's ever seen a depiction of Say Schrodinger's equation, which is f equals m a for quantum mechanics that you often see like h psi equals What is h psi equals? E e psi, which is a a rough generalization of a much more sophisticated equation F equals m a is the same e equals mc squared is the same They're they're generalizations of those equations because it's just easier to in a in a general sense That's why we generalize them. It's easier to work with them Yeah, when you actually get when you're actually like doing derivations of these equations You don't work with the generalizations. You work with with what the actual equations are in other words You have to add in the inertial forces Centrifugal force and Coriolis force and Euler force Now why that's important is because when you have a rotating universe around the fixed earth The angular momentum of the rotating universe is going to create those very forces So we don't have to add them into the equations. They're already there in a geocentric universe um First I just wanted to say one thing. It's it's it's Euler not Euler. It's pronounced. I'm sorry Euler And of course those forces would have to be in included into them That's generally why we like to use special relativity because it's an extension Of that will not just newtons laws, but of just classical mechanics in general In other words newton had a defect that einstein had to improve. Oh, yeah, we all know that newtons So where did he get it from you get it from the fact that he that he just had the solar system as As his uh, that's not what it is. It's it's mainly that one of the biggest issues was that um Well, he had newt newt had two defects He had number one with relativity that he had spacetime fixed and immutable and we know space and time Well, number one, they were separate and immutable We now know they're combined in one fan of manifold that can be bent and stretched and twisted and contorted So it's newton is not wrong. It's just his Newtonian mechanics, which I guess you could include classical mechanics in there is an approximation of both relativity and then some say something like quantum mechanics For things that a aren't moving close to the speed of light and b aren't really really really really really really small So newton was not wrong. He was just he was on the right path He just what didn't have kick um access to enough technology to make the observations that would have brought him to Relativity Jumping into q&a in just a minute guys Right on sound good that he would have not had a problem Well, we'll jump into it want to say thanks so much everybody for your questions our Guests are linked in the description So if you'd like to hear more from them, you can hear plenty more from our guests by clicking on those links below Also, a couple links to aftershows are also linked in the description I think it's crafty kilo is hosting one in which I think they said that both of you Leo and Dr. Robert are invited and then also They had said that in the other one speed of sound of gravity They had also said that they're hosting an after show which is linked in the description as well And marty cameo says yay leo. You got a fan out there leo Mike bill ours. Thanks for your super chat said let's see. Wow. This debate is one facepalm short of a flat earther controversial and sunday warship says how does Dr. S account for the predictable annual meteor showers They're the same in the geocentric and heliocentric system. There's no difference Gotcha. Thank you very much and cider and port says after show on crafty kilo's channel Leo we want you or want you on to chat if you're down Link is sent to you on twitter. Oh, okay, so speed of sound others Speed of sound of gravity said after show on speed of sound of gravity. Can you check your email? I definitely got that for you speed of sound. So that's in the description as well l spagato. Thanks for your question said doctor sun jenesis Uh, gosh sun jenesis. Thank you for your patience says are there any recent models or diagrams for the geocentric universe That you could point us to to help laypersons like me to understand how the thing you've described works Yeah, go to uh our website journey to the center of the universe.com We have a flash drive that has over 60 animations of the geocentric universe not just the solar system Geocentric universe or a system, but the the whole universe Rotating everything that I talked about tonight is all that flash drive in animations And we've done a lot of work to put those things together for you. So take advantage of it Thanks so much and want to kick take a quick moment to remind you all if you have not heard actually This is a new one. We are now on audible and amazon music for our podcast So this debate will eventually be in the podcast format and want to let you know folks We're on virtually every major podcast if you can't find us on your favorite podcast app Let us know we will work hard to get on there for you Next l spagato. We got that one all over cat. Well, thanks for your super chat said start 2021 on a positive note do something nice for someone give a random compliment and hit that like button Thanks all over for your support really do appreciate it and mike billar says could Could dr. St. jenice, please Please name a couple of the 60 possible reasons that he thinks redshift occurs I've already given a several of them gravitation is one Cosmic dust is another Um You know the guy who who did this with sandage Uh, what's his first name? Um famous physicists Um san da g is his name. I forget his first name. He's the one to put the list together Gotcha, thanks very much and this question comes in from manard saves who says Leo philias the most brilliant bobby dazzler of them all What is a bobby dazzler? It's a bobby dazzler if you watch the curse of oak island You know gary, you'll you'll uh, you'll know it for anybody out there in the audience Obviously it next thank you for your uh, super jet space monkey says Leo has a broken epistemology. We know the bible is true So start with the conclusion psalm 104 verse 5 then work to make the evidence fit The bible comes first evidence second Silly atheist this has to be a troll because they spelled atheists wrong, but I don't know for sure That that reeks of troll. Okay. Hey the next up el spagato Thank you for your questions as this is a stick up everybody summarize Hubble's teaching right now So, uh, give a chance to robert and then we'll kick it over to leo to explain or I should say summarize Hubble's teachings right now Yeah, um I'll just repeat what I said before read Hubble's 1937 book the observation will approach to cosmology In there about a half a dozen times He says that the red shift puts the earth in the center of the universe He doesn't like that. So how do we get away from it? We create a balloon universe and put all the gall And in creating a balloon universe what you're doing is you're taking the center out Because the balloon doesn't have a center. It just has a surface So if you put all the galaxies on the surface and you blow up the galaxy and have it expand All the galaxies are going to move from way from one another and they're each going to see a red shift from every other galaxy So that's how he explained Redshift from a non geocentric viewpoint and then What's his name? Lumetri came along and said well if we have an expanding universe then what happens if we if we reverse it Well, we go back to a cosmic egg and he believed You know, he's basically invented the big bang theory and then What's his name? Eddington came along and said well, he didn't believe in the cosmic egg So they had a little tussle between themselves And then fred hoyle came along and put the words big bang on to lumetri's theory And that's how we got the big bang theory and From that, you know, we had pensius and wilson come along 1963 who claimed that the cosmic microwave background radiation was The remnants of the big bang But then we had some other things happen and this is what our movie is all about the principle the The they set up three probes one in 1990 one in 2001 and one in 2009 The kobe probe the wmf probe and the plonk probe and they all came back With evidence that the earth was in the center of the universe Why well because the cosmic microwave radiation wasn't Isotropic and homogeneous It was and isotropic and inhomogeneous And it was aligned with the ecliptic of the sun earth Which they call the axis of evil and that has not been disproven because they had three space probes up within 20 years showing that it existed So there's another piece of that. So Um, the big bang theory is on its way out. I give it another 25 30 years and just want to go complete Thank you very much and leo So I don't know what the asker meant by Excuse me Hubble's teachings Um, but what Hubble observed independent of his own personal opinions, whatever they may have been Was that distant galaxies? It just isn't galaxies close to us. This is very distant galaxies appear redshifted their their light is redshifted mean thought well, that's Rather interesting. Maybe you know, I could be like robert said it could have been due to cosmic dust But then he noted well wait hold on here The further away they are the redder they appear and it's directly proportionate. There there's a linear relationship there So it seems to me he said that the the galaxies themselves are not moving Because once we start getting further and further out galaxies are moving at speeds that galaxies just wouldn't be capable of moving at It's it seems as though the space between us and the galaxies is expanding and naturally the further away a galaxy is The faster it's going to move away from us because the more space there is in between us to expand Similarly, if you put a bunch of dots on a balloon and blow up the balloon you take two dots that are close together They'll move apart pretty slowly if you take two dots that are further apart They'll stretch apart more quickly because there's more balloon to be stretched in between them uh, george le metho came along and Ended up developing the big bang model like he said, which we don't really call it the big bang model It's it's the lambda cdm model because it incorporates both dark matter and Dark energy lambda representing dark matter and cdm standing for dark energy and cdm standing for cold dark matter The cosmic microwave background Is essentially experimental Confirmation of the big bang because it shows that the universe started out in a very hot very dense state The cosmic microwave background are the photons that are left over from the period of recombination roughly 400 dish thousands years After the big bang when photons decoupled from matter and were capable of actually Moving through spacetime without being absorbed prior to that the universe was too dense too hot. It was a plasma lights just It's sort of a hot suit between protons electrons and photons bouncing off of them So the universe expanded cooled down matter formed, uh hydrogen atoms Which is another reason we know the big bang happened the abundance of hydrogen um, and the one the one more thing I wanted to um to comment on is I actually have a link from science Magazine titled it's official. You're lost in a direction is the universe from september 7 2016 That mentions the axis axis of people and actually shows that no there is no axis of people Next up. Thank you very much. Wow. Jump to the next one. Mitchell says question for leo Can the brain waves or ear sound waves and the visual spectrum expand? If so, why can't the universe do the same and retain coherence? I have no idea what they're even trying to ask I have no idea what they're trying to ask. I can read it one more time. Is it can the brain waves? ear parentheses sound Waves and the visual spectrum expand if so I think that he's saying like they can expand. So why is it that the universe can't Expand and still retain its coherence as well I when he says it's coherence. I don't know that the universe is expanding Gotcha because of the stretching of those those those light ways that we know that the universe is expanding Thank you very much. Mike bill ours thinks your question said he said it quote an earth in the center of the universe They're skeptical, but I I guess we'll we'll let you make the your own decision out there folks Mike bill ours is skeptical though and michael dresden Okay, that's another troll Chad eckard. Thank you for your Superjet said this isn't the red shift you are looking for thank you very much I love the star wars reference any star wars reference is good here luminiferous ethan says To the geocentrists if earth is at the center. Why does the planet mars retrograde? Do a loop in the sky over time? How does that work? Well, if you can look at a geocentric animation that we have the ones that I said we have 60 animations on our flash drive It'll have geocentric retrograde and heliocentric retrograde And you'll see by very simple just reversal of the Of the earth and the sun That the same retrograde has gone to appear in the geocentric universe that appears in the heliocentric universe Gotcha, and thank you very much for your question. This one comes in from el spigato says I suspect dr. Son as a is a crypto Flat earther everybody vote now. I don't know what crypto in this context means, but I think they're asking if you're a flat earther Uh, I gave that in the beginning of the program. I think uh, when I said Flat earth is wrong. I wrote a 700 page book titled flat earth flat wrong Uh, but what I did say is it's not as easy to get to the right position as some people think that it is Um, and I gave the example of looking over the lake michigan Uh and seeing the chicago skyline. Yeah, it does drop 900 feet under the ground Uh, and so how do you explain that? Well, do you explain it because you know, uh, oh, I'm sorry On normal days, you can't see the chicago skyline On some days you can especially in april and may So why is that is the earth flat? No, it's because of atmospheric aberration Because of the temperature between the water and the air it changes sufficiently enough to bend the light so that it appears that You can see the chicago skyline You can't get to that position unless you do your scientific homework And that's why i'm saying it's a little hard to get to the position that the earth isn't flat A lot harder than some people think although i'm not a flat earther and never have Dr. Thank you very much. Mike bill ours says Doctor if I show you the source code to my working gps receiver, which shows relativistic corrections will your They said I think they're saying will this make sense under your view. How do you explain this under your view? Yeah, because the relativistic, uh Corrections that you're seeing are just The product of the samyak correction that they put into the gps He seeks as they know That light does not travel the same speed east to west as it does west to east So how do you compensate for that? There's a 50 nanosecond difference between the speed of light in one direction and the other Well, you you program the computer with a samyak correction And then it comes out that the speed east to west and west to east is the same But it's not because the lights be changed It's because they they change the computer program to make it look like like that and that's why you get a relativistic effect Gotcha. Thank you very much and thank you very much for your next question This one coming in from remnant art who says Doctor sun jenis. I don't believe you science never proves anything. It develops models Let's see. I'll give you a chance to If you disagree or not regarding whether or not science develops models If you want a chance to respond. Yeah. Yeah, I think he's getting at a good point Um special relativity is a model of the universe general relativity is a model Geocentrism is a model We see the empirical evidence But we have to interpret it And sometimes we interpret it based on our presuppositions our biases our prejudices Information that's not complete Information that is faulty and so the model that we make from the empirical evidence that we see is going to be subject to all those little Follies and foibles that we have in our minds about how do we interpret this evidence? Sometimes we hit it right a lot of times we hit it wrong Okay, but each of us is going to make a model of what we interpret that evidence to be Saying to us, but we may be wrong in interpretation You bet. Thanks very much and thank you for your super chat room nephilim pre says thanks for all that you do I appreciate your positivity enough. Thank you and thanks everybody else for being so positive in the chat We appreciate all your encouragement and we're excited about 2021 Next up daver. Thanks for your question said if everything in the universe is expanding How could asteroids and meteorites crash into planets and moons? I think they're saying like if the universe is expanding so quickly It would seem that they would never be able to make it to being Or I should say if these you say items or objects are expanding so quickly from each other How could they ever make it to actually colliding with each other as they're moving through this expanding away Space I'd like to add to that and say that if the universe is expanding. Why don't we see our solar system expanding? Why don't we see our galaxies expanding? They're all the same size. We'll give you 100s of years ago Just so we don't I'll let's give up Give leo a chance for these both these objects as well as why it doesn't appear that our solar system is expanding leo Can you reiterate the question? Sure. So let me try to understand it Correct. They had said if everything in the universe is expanding how could asteroids and meteorites crash into planets and moons Um, well everything in the universe isn't expanding So space time is expanding and it's undergoing a metric expansion of its scale That is only measurable over vast distances on the order of tens of millions of light years If not hundreds of millions of light years objects in space time are not Expanding space time is expanding and stencils objects exist in space time the space time is carrying them with them Like if I take a piece of paper and I drop it in a river the paper actually technically isn't moving relative to the river It's just being carried by the movement of the river Gotcha. Thanks for that. And then sider and port. Thanks for your question said Did this doctor just say we don't know how gravity works. I took an edible earlier. So it could be That it's playing with me. Let's see. So they're they're skeptical about your idea that Regarding gravity. Yeah, so Einstein's theory Uh, we're space is bent first of all that begs the question if space is just space time then what's bending? That's number one Space but it's just a theory. Okay. Nobody knows why an apple falls to the earth Newton thought he might know might have to do something with ether We can tell you how fast it's going And we can tell you what the escape velocity is 9 9 meters per second per second And we can tell you that the apple falls 32 feet per second per second, but we can't tell you why it falls What is the mechanism that's pulling that apple or pushing that apple? We don't even know if it's a pull or a push And there's all kinds of theories out there. There's hundreds of theories of gravity out there our Even quantum mechanics has its own theory of gravity quantum loop gravity And super string theory and all that kind of stuff which goes Entirely against einsteins view of gravity But you have to understand these are all theories of what makes one object attracted to another or what's pushing one object to another Nobody knows nobody has proven what the real cause of gravity is Gotcha and thanks so much for your question from ray Kelleher says Electromagnetism is literally caused by relativistic length contraction. I would be happy to explain this to both debaters anytime Well, I already know what he's talking about. He doesn't need to explain that to me Yeah, well, he would need to explain it to me because Relativity was not designed to answer Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations are still used today Of course you yes two basic equations and they they both one says One thing the the other says another thing it tells us how Uh an induction coil and a magnet work together and they both have different equations. Well, how can that be? All you're doing is moving an induction coil around a magnet and then you're moving the magnet around the induction coil But you have two different equations for that. Yeah, that's the way nature works. Why because it's not relativistic It's absolutistic That's the whole thing that Maxwell gave us. Einstein didn't like that So he tried to relativize Maxwell's equations Because if if we're going to have relativity explain the michaelson morally experiment, will it better to our shore explain maxwell's equations, too You see they the deeper they dug their hole the further they Fell into it and until today Einstein is you know His own theory contradicted his previous theory in general relativity contradicted to special relativity Because special relativity went off the wrong track right from the get-go Gotcha. Thank you very much. This one coming in from El Spaghetti says this is another stick up are either of you selling a book. Please answer I have I have plenty to sell here's one for you geocentrism geocentrism for dumskies and smart kids Thank you and El Spagato strikes again says g-man wins Everybody everybody pack up and go home G-man's one of our regular debaters although we haven't had it's been a long time since we've had g-man on so G-man we hope you're doing well Leo says you know those balancing birds Doctor is likening the the dr. Robert is likening the universe to that where the earth is the bird beak Center of mass doesn't have to be massive That's right. That's why I told uh, Leo that you could have the center of mass for a universe without having anything in the center Same difference you could put the earth there have nothing there the universe is going to rotate around the center of mass Gotcha and this one comes in from cider and port says Said dr. Robert. Where did you receive your doctorate? Callum is international university I run a 700 700 page dissertation over three not about three years Uh, I got my phd in 2006. Thank you very much. Mike bill ars. Thanks for your question said leo. You know those balancing Oh, we got that uh decepticons forever says let's see Just trolling and uh remnant art. Thanks for your question says dr. Non-genius Oh, you got quite the skeptic out there robert. Let's see. They say you are They uh, we got a lot of trolls. They say you are coming across like Uh, very defensive when leo gets into specifics. This is typical for conspiracy types Is this the case robert? Do you think you're getting defensive or do you think that you are not? Uh, I think it's just a stereotype. Thank you Thank you. Mike bill ars. Thanks for your question said so your argument is quote all science that disagrees with me is conspiracy by atheists and all science that blurs into my view Is right because of god Uh, no Thanks, mike bill ars as well for saying let's see robert does your belief in god hinge on geocentrism For example, if heliocentrism was proven to be uh proven to be true, would you still be a theist? Yes, I would god can make the universe any way he wants Gotcha. Thanks so much space monkey. Thanks for your question said for dr son jenice If the bible instead had poetic descriptions of heliocentrism, would you still believe in geocentrism? If no, what then would you do with all of your evidence for geocentrism? Well, see that assumes that poetry in the bible is this fictional It's not Most of the quotes in the new testament to verify new testament truth come from the psalms, which are all poetic The the only thing about poetry is it's putting rhythmic Language with cadence and rhymes and things like that, but it doesn't mean it has any less truth than something written in prose Gotcha, and thank you for your question this one coming in from Mike billard says well the doctor is right. I guess I just deny geocentrism because I hate god and I love my sin Thanks figure your honesty mike and next one out there that do that all of it Next up L spagato says honest question. Who is they I think he's they're meaning like if if anybody referred to people as like they like don't want the truth Out or something like that or they don't maybe it was the idea. I'm not exactly sure who they is either You guys know what that context is Uh, I can't remember them. I I do not Gotcha and This one comes in from I think I had read Yeah, we read space monkeys. Thanks for that We read mike. Let's see Andreas elda Thank you said dr. S. How does alpha centauri managed to travel a 25 light-year cycle every day hint They say very much faster than the speed of light Oh, yeah, anything past Saturn is going to go beyond sea Uh, because of Einstein's general relativity theory, that's what we spent the whole time basically on in this debate Einstein says because of relativity the earth is fixed and the universe is rotating around it Or the earth is rotating under a fixed universe take your pick And if the universe is rotating around a fixed earth, obviously then Einstein agrees that material objects and light have to go faster than sea Sea is only for light speed. That's Near near the earth or all the earth That's that's where they've measured it and I would agree that that light near the earth or all the earth is 186,000 miles per second Gotcha I just wanted to say really really quickly that if the speed of light is not constant the fundamental constants that govern pretty much All of reality and like almost all of quantum mechanics would also be wrong And those are sick. Those are confirmed to many more decimal places than either general or special relativity Gotcha, and thank you. Talk to Einstein about that one. Thank you for your question. Mike billar says let's see Can we all take a moment and appreciate how devilishly good-looking james is like I said, we've got a lot of trolls James is that a new blazer? No, it's the same blazer. I'm telling you guys while you Goodwill any sort of thrift shop you can get men's blazers for like five to eight bucks. It's tremendous And I haven't been able to see your picture here all night. I just see your name Oh, that's right. That's I've only got because I'm on the road I am currently if you see the video after it looks like I'm in a bunker. I uh Don't have both of my cameras, but I'm wearing a blazer and my uh, just a tea underneath but I am Yes, I do love blazers. There's no doubt about it and silver harlow. Thank you for your question said dr. Robert. What novel Testable predictions can your model make that might falsify it? None that I know of We've been through them all We've passed everyone Gotcha and mike bill ours. Thank you for your super chat says I guess we all just took edibles Gotcha. Well On me I next animated effigy. Thank you for your says doctor religious studies Here is the one who wants to Impose his beliefs on science. We're not even the center of the galaxy. How can we be the center of the universe? So well, we'll give you a chance to rebut any one of those points if you'd like robert Well, yeah, obviously, uh, we're not the center of the galaxy, but the galaxy does rotate around us I mean the galaxy could rotate around us if we're on one of the outward spiral arms of the milky way It doesn't make any difference. Obviously, we don't want to be in the center of the milky way Otherwise, we'd be burning up Um, and what was the other thing doctor religious studies? Um, well, you know Religion and science, uh, at some points they converge they overlap and we're talking about one of the places where they do overlap This was a religious issue Back in the 1600s with Galileo as much as it was a science issue With people that came before Um, they had a philosophical preference for either a geocentric or a heliocentric universe They they they speak about that so um These again are places where the two sciences or two, uh, ideologies converge and we have to discuss them at those points You got it and thank you for your question. This one coming in from anime Oh, I think we got that one. Let me go to this next one. This one is from dean kruger Who said where is dr sun jenis published? Uh, you can go to robertsongenis.org or dot com or dot net So that's my first and last name dot com Uh, or you can go to journey to the center of the universe dot com Thank you very much and want to remind you folks few things one our guests are both linked in the description So if you would like to learn more about them or about their ideas You can go to those links and read or hear plenty more And also we have those aftershow links which are in the description as well Also, we will be right back We're going to take a short intermission and then I will be back with some epic new announcements I don't know if you guys heard the huge news today But we are thrilled that we have reached our kickstarter goal and we are creating a stretch goal So we are going beyond that original goal And I would love to hear your guys's ideas as i'm seeking feedback and like what kind of stretch goal Might we do stuff like that and so do stick around we will be back in a few minutes But first I want to say thanks again to our guests Robert and leo it's been a true pleasure. Thank you so much for hanging out with us tonight and making your case on modern day debate tonight Great my pleasure. Thank you Thank you. Follow me on twitter peeps Thanks so much and as mentioned, I will be right back folks. Thanks so much Ladies and gentlemen stoked to mention. I this is epic news you guys We we are thrilled you guys We are stoked about the fact that We have reached our kickstarter goal despite I I would say It's been so many of you. I want to say thank you so much. You've been so supportive You've been so positive even when we were like sitting at like, I don't know eight dollars You know when we opened it was like, you know, it was like kind of trickling in and so I want to say Thank you so much for those of you who have been positive despite that One of the one of the biggest lessons I've learned in my life in different domains like college football and other things Is that one of the best qualities you can have is believing in something even when it seems hopeless Really? Like that's where you're just like, oh my gosh Like I don't think we can win this anymore And so I do really want to say we totally Appreciate you guys for being super Encouraging super positive that kickstarter is in the description. You can still give to it I want to show you guys a few things For that as we are pumped is we're not stomping in fact, this is you know, we're thrilled I mean we may still do as you're seeing on the screen. That's me Steven scene and t-jump We may still do this car wash in january to raise extra funds to throw into the kickstarter Look at tom. He looks terrific. He loves holding the hose there. Look at him. He's a terrific guy, but we We are very excited Gotta let you know about a few things one is I am honestly I'm blown away the way the fact that we actually we made that goal. We're absolutely thrilled So this debate you're seeing on the screen will be live next friday january 8th The Kickstarter is still open. So you can still watch it live. It's just three bucks Which michael, thank you for your three dollar super chat that you just sent right now I really appreciate it Is that you just all you have to do is if you go to the Kickstarter Which is linked in the description and which I will throw it in the live chat here in just a moment Basically, the way it works is that you guys this is honestly too cool You don't even have to create an account if you want you can just go into this Kickstarter link and If you just sign in with facebook you can just bypass creating an account It's that easy you guys and so I want to show you that as well. You guys this is a piece of cake I mean look at this so Two seconds here it is Would you take a look at this? This is the login if you're like, oh, I don't want to put my email in though I don't want to do anything like that You don't have to you see that blue button if you want you just click sign in through facebook It's so easy And you might be wondering.  Like is it like ten dollars? And what is it? No, it is just three bucks The price of a cup of coffee. Come on you guys So we wanted purposely we wanted to make it as cheap as possible Just because we knew it was like well one it's a remote debate I know a lot of you guys are like dude I would totally prefer an in-person debate But because of the restrictions currently in place across the country we're like, you know I think right now we're just going to have to do it remotely And that's one of the reasons I it's like hey like three bucks. That's cheap You can't go wrong with that and there are different things you can do So for example, just kind of scrolling down now You'll see at the bottom of your screen is it says This is basically your name in the thank you ticker at the bottom of the screen And so that 10 bucks is just a way of basically showing more support saying hey I really am excited about this event. And so it also puts your name in that thank you list And so we really do appreciate that but also you guys I I'm pumped I want to show you a couple of things one is that Let me show you chrome full screen. So First We have reached 100 of our initial goal. We have bumped it up to now. It's up to $500 more We're going to strive to get to 3,000 total I am so excited you guys. This is honestly going to be super epic and so Want to let you know it's going to be epic El Spagato said I still don't have a Kickstarter account, but I hope that you play never stop by front 242 while you do that car wash. I appreciate that spell spagato I will play that song and I'll play it like it's my job Silver Harlow says thanks for another entertaining debate. Not sure where you dig up Crazy things like this. Give me a good laugh.  I know I appreciate when you're positive in the chat In terms of encouraging us and what we do that means a lot Also Oh tuss. You already tagged the uh Kickstarter in the description. Thanks for doing that. I totally appreciate that help So some of the ideas that we're looking at is we do think that we'll probably use man Shivites jag nart narth Pro you gotta keep you gotta stop spamming man It's like you're that's why people are like coming down on you in the chat Is you keep getting your stuff deleted and for you know pretty soon here. We're gonna Yeah, there you go. I'm sorry. I warned you man. I'm gonna I'm gonna put you uh, where is this I'm hiding you man. You've been put into timeout three three hundred times if you're Bringing the quality of the chat down Over and over and over after being warned eventually we're gonna say hey You're gonna have to create a new account if you want to be heard here, but We are super exciting Or super excited as you guys this is epic On screen that is just showing that right now. We're already at a over 80 for a goal of this $3,000 goal this stretch goal I think we're this is the goal. This is what I think is the best plan We want to do another in-person debate at the atheist experience with matt delahunty. I think that would be epic I think it'd be really fun We one matt obviously is a phenomenal debater. He draws a ton of people people really enjoy watching him And so if people really enjoy it, it's like hey, that's what we're shooting for is we want people to enjoy the channel So it would be in person Which means it would probably be in late spring maybe summer In which we would basically use those extra funds for our stretch goal To fl