A Geocentric Para-dumb
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- Matty's Paradigm is at www.mattysparad.... Beware of severe stupid!
My Patreon: / martymer81
If you don't like Patreon, you can also make donations to martymer81(at)gmail.com via Paypal!
My Twitter: @MartymerM81
Pay me a trillion dollars and I'll use radar to measure the distance to the Andromeda Nebula. If 5 million years from now you don't have the distance, I'll give you your money back.
Barry On i love your genius, sir!
@ Barry On... OK sounds good to me... would you accept a post dated check ?
P S -- do you have a sister named Carrie ? I think I know her
@@carlpen850 not bad!
With interest?
Each time he said gravity I expected a Desertphile cameo. Damn you Pavlovian response!
Of course!
@KEVIN ACKERMAN Conspiritards are indeed scared of geometry. ;-)
Claiming the stars don't have paralax because Galilei couldn't do it, is like saying helicopters aren't real because Leonardo da Vinci couldn't make his helix helicopter work
"I think I struck gold here" Ill be the judge of that my friend
"hell is expanding, causing global warming" ... Its the mother load.
If the universe is 6,000 years old, that means the farthest objects in the observable universe can't be any farther than 6,000 light years away, otherwise light from those objects wouldn't have reached us yet and we wouldn't be able to see them. So if the entire universe is orbiting around the Earth, then the observable universe is essentially a sphere of 6,000 light years in radius, which would make it 37,700 light years in circumference. This means any object 6,000 light years away has to traverse a distance of 37,700 light years every 24 hours in order to appear to travel across the sky as seen from Earth every 24 hours. So for the geocentric model to work, the universe must be rotating around the Earth at roughly 50 billion times the speed of light.
Can geocentrists claim that the Earth is turning without breaking their bullshit?
That's why they have to deny space and say it's just some lights on a spinning dome.
Dr Shaym Silly atheist (because all scientifically literate people are atheists, duh, except for creationists who claim to be _truly_ scientifically literate, far more so than actual scientists, scoff) God Emperor Jehovah made the universe to _look_ old and as if there is a light horizon! And the Earth is stationary, it is the cosmos rotating around us at a _ludicrous speed_ ;)
Carl Sagan Sorta like serving a Sarah Lee apple pie but making it _look_ as if it were an apple pie made from scratch, isn't Carl? ;)
So... Jehovah god hates lies, he never lies, he kills the liars and damns them eternally... Yet, he made the Universe in order to look far older than it is because he is always honest, true and fair?!.... You really believe that? Yeah, logic bites creation in the ass...
The red/blue shift thing just floored me! Wow! That is some world class stupid right there!
Yah. That level of stupid was truly amazing. I think only Trump has said anything stupider.
Good grief, a minute ago I checked your channel to see if I'd missed a video and you just uploaded this. Coincidence? Yes.
David Murphy Are you sure you're not some sort of Jedi Space Jew? Better check ancestry.com just to be sure
Humboldt Hip-Neck Hangout
Maybe! Let's check! Hmm. Not sure what the site meant by "bog dwelling crud eating Irish peasant village idiots all the way back" Under "noteworthy ancestors" it gave "Baldric"...
Hmm.. Hard to say if I'm illuminati or not.
David Murphy No! Not _coincidence_ , it is your _destiny_ ! Something, something, _Dark Side_ ; something, something, _complete_ ! :)
Obviously, this is proof that Martymer is the creator of the universe.
cjermevpg... woah. In this case I have to have some stern words with Martymer as creator of the universe.
Why can't we break light-speed and settle on other planets.... why are there even so few habitable worlds?
Why is there stuff like viruses and germs? Why are there heridetiary ailments?
World Hunger, constant wars...
Why the heck Pi is 3.1415... and not... 3 or something?
The creator of the universe has to answer for a hell lot of things...
I've had the misfortune of talking with this guy, regarding stellar parallax. You're being too kind to him.
Damn, the patterns produced by having the solar system revolve around other planets are beautiful.
Nonsense, but pretty patterns.
YOU need a spirograph kit.
www.amazon.com/Super-Spirograph-75-piece-Jumbo-Anniversary/dp/B00KJLUTQU/
As AronRa put it - the pot calling silverware black. Creationist hypocricy knows no bounds.
Planets orbit the sun
"its so obvious now!"
*Gets burned at the stake despite showing proof of concept*
Some of this made me laugh out loud. The stars are made of precious stones?
Not only that.
Somebody seems to miss that precious doesn't glitter and reflect light naturally, at least not when compared to how much they do when polished.
So somebody (Yahweh?) had to facet-cut and polish those precious stone-stars before placing them.
That bit made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video briefly!
New martymer81 video? But it's not Christmas...
Cluckery Duckery
Every time Martymer releases a video, Atheists and Evolutionists celebrate Christmas.
Belisarius
What about scientismists?
@Klobi for President
I dont know who that is.
Belisarius
Scientism-ists maybe you get the system from this example: Evolution-ists.
@Klobi for President
What the fuck are you on about?
Are you on Drugs?
11m30s When you see how incredibly complicated the motions of the planets & sun are relative to earth,
it makes it all that more amazing that Copernicus could figure out ANYTHING from this mess & more amazing his insight to put the origin of coordinates at the sun.
“stars are rubys thats why theyre red shifted” holy shit.
Global warming caused by expansion of Hell, that was really funny 😄
I believe I can explain why Matthew used to see bigger pine cones than he does now.
There happens to be more than one type of tree.
Baron von Quiply also when youre smaller things actually are bigger to you.
But McDonald's burgers have definitely shrunk over the years.
That reminds me of a funny story. When I was a little kid, around 3 years old, I had a large plastic Crayola crayon with wheels (the common sit-on-and-push-with-your-feet ride-able toy) and one day saw that the back end was a few inches shorter than I recalled it being . "MOM! Did someone use my crayon?!?"
@@myguydied Retweet #McdonaldsMustBeAccountable
21:30-22:07 : Okay, I understand that the scientific consensus is indeed that human emissions of carbon dioxide is the key cause of global warming, but are you seriously going to leave unaddressed that he just said that EARTH'S MOLTEN CORE IS EXPANDING?!
Granted, I did not know that (though it makes sense), but that means that the molten outer core is slowly diminishing in size compared to the solid inner core, right?
To be fair, I was using Matty's phrasing there. Earth's core melted and it is Hell. Plus, your point about the core growing doesn't work if you treat the inner and outer cores as parts of a whole. It doesn't really matter though, honestly, I was pointing the expansion out, because it almost sounds like Matty is one of the expanding Earth people and to leave that fact out would be a comedic failure of the century.
That's actually not even the "Scientiffic consensus"... the claim that it's a consensus agreement is false on its face.
John Toas Incorrect. Even if it is CO2 causing the CLIMATE CHANGE, the most voluminous amount of CO2 comes from Volcanic activity and the difference between our out put and theirs is many magnitudes.
However.... many scientists believe it is the sun driving the changes in climate, not greenhouse gasses.
There is no "consensus"
Great video. It is always fascinating to see the chaos that the geocentric model tries to resolve for reality.
Wow, the spirals when you pin it to Saturn are awesome.
It's always funny when they say "these things can't be proven" when they're talking about things that even if they hadn't already been proven, would be quite provable (or disprovable). I mean, the fact that humans are products of evolution is as proven as it's ever going to be, presuming someone doesn't build some kind of time machine.
Even then, it would be virtually impossible to prove evolution to the standards of creationists, because, no matter how many times you explain evolution, still think it's somewhere between X-men and Ninja Turtles. Go back in time a million years and you might get them to grudgingly admit that the earth is 1,000,001 years old, but they'll still look around, not find any homo-sapiens and declare it to be proof of special creation.
It doesn't matter how far back you go, or where you draw the line between us and ancestor X, any single specimen/cohort will still fall into the arbitrary deliniation of either being "humanish" #microevolution #closeyoureyesandhum or not human #checkmate atheists.
That is true. Even if you could show them in some meta-species time-lapse or something it doesn't matter since in most cases the worst of them state that the Bible is true regardless of any evidence. I've seen people say that even if they could go back and saw that Jesus didn't exist or didn't resurrect they'd still believe that he did, because the Bible said that he did. Hell, if God existed and appeared in the flesh before them and said the Bible was a complete load of shit they'd even refuse that in all probability.
As long as we remember the test of nature isn't survival of the fittest or natural selection. It just went with whatever worked. Human evolution was good enough and that is all.
That's an odd thing to say, since "what(ever) works" is determined by natural selection. And generally "survival of the fittest" tends to favor that which worked best (also remembering that survival of the fittest applies to the "fittest" species, not necessarily individuals).
Pennpenn it’s true that that which works best tends to be favored by natural selection, but there are plenty of things that just work well and are far from being close to optimal, but still made it through natural selection instead of what works best for... plenty of reasons (sexual selection, genetic shift, etc), and even bad things that went through for some of the same reasons.
Point is : that which works well enough is more often selected than « that which works best ».
Well done, Martymer! I especially like your emphasis on the power of science (or any method) being its ability to make useful predictions.
It's a good day when we get a Marty rant lol
Thank you Marty. Nice to see you back. Also, I'm pleased that you have taken the evidence that repeated blows to the head can cause brain damage seriously and improved your safety warnings. Good work.
When I first pointed my first telescope at what I figured out was jupiter and seen the moons words can't describe the feeling
The RUclips Earth isn't heliocentric or geocentric - it's *_egocentric._*
It is my belief that the universe came into existance two seconds ago with the false appearance of having existed for billions of years... You can't prove me wrong. ;P
martijn van weele Two seconds? That's pure heresy I say. Everyone knows it was created last Thursday.
Heresy! Last Fridayism is the one true faith!
Anyway, we are not going to settle this as the debate has raged since -last Friday- Time began.
What about the older light the farther deep into the universe you look? Lol.
That's only a false appearance. As is you writing this comment. You think you wrote this comment, but in reality, the universe popped into existance two seconds ago, complete with seemingly old light, your comment, and the memories you think you have of placing it...
@@Steelmage99 bullshit. The universe was created last Thursday, not Friday! Lol
When brain doesn't work and integrity doesn't exist, you get Mattys of this world.
Hell is expanding... Thus global warming. That is honestly the first time I have heard that one. And I have to naively ask... What measurements? Where in the bible does it say this? Did God "tell" him this? Where is this coming from other than "common" sense utterly submerged in specific belief?
The cavities within the Earth that contained the water for the Flood of Noah emptied due to the flood, so now the pillars supporting the Earth's crust are melting and the planet is shrinking because of this, which explains tectonics and the rise of mountains. Meanwhile Hell expands because of souls coming in. Because the rate of souls is variable, we also can on occasion detect gravitational waves. No really. He really believes this. There is some vague Bible quote about Hell increasing and engulfing the Earth, which this is mostly based on.
Where did this water empty to... considering water... goes down in to the earth? Let's assume the magic water of the magic event did magically disappear however, so.. the pillars God made to hold the earth are now failing, because intelligent design. Which is causing the earth to shrink, which it isn't at all doing. Which doesn't explain tectonics because most of the recent shifting around (millions of years mind you) has been out and away.. not towards each other which is how shrinking tends to work. Mountains could possibly be explained by this, i'll grant you that, but it would defy the way everything moved due to that cause so... not so much.
With all of that out of the way... this hell place, full of /NON PHYSICAL ENTITIES/ is expanding because Souls? Because the "rate of souls is variable" and all of human or any other kind of soul (demons and fallen angels or what ever other magical things) were not sufficient to make it "expand" for no reason before... create gravitational waves... from... where ever the purely spiritual realm of hell is... and there is actually some bible quote about this?
Their God... this is some ridiculous fantasy novel tripe. However Anteroinen, thank you for explaining... things with... words. They don't make any sense but, I appreciate your efforts to try to help me understand.
It's a _basic_ belief, meaning it is not based on anything. There should be no measurements and no Bible verses, because if any such thing were the basis for the belief, then the belief would not be basic.
I have to disagree with you at 4:30. We can prove deductively that inductive reasoning works. You just have to invoke the pragmatic maxim for defining truth. A "true" belief will necessarily allow one to make empirically predictive decisions. A false belief can also do that, but only contingently. If we formulate our beliefs through induction, we will eventually make decisions based on those beliefs. The valid beliefs will result in empirically predictive outcomes while the invalid beliefs will eventually fail to do so. So when induction works, it works, and when it doesn't work, it eventually lets you know. You can then revise your beliefs and move on to the next inductive inference until the next error occurs. Induction is therefore reliable in the sense that it progressively approaches the truth over time through a progressive elimination of false beliefs.
Oh, hey! He's not dead!
Welcome back, Martymer.
New Martymer 81!!!!! YEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Oh no, no no no no no NO!
My nickname is Matty, I'm gonna hunt this guy down and restore honour to my name
Almost missed this because it was buried by all my other subscriptions. Thank you for the video!
I love you map analog at the end. I can just picture a bunch of people holding up giant foldable torist maps in front of their faces, insisting there's a road in front of them even as they walk off a cliff.
Every production crew needs a good research team. From Matty's LinkedIn Profile (I've screen capped it in case he gets cold feet.)
"As the Training Manager for Custodial Services my goal is to ensure that all of our employees know how to do their jobs safely"
Thanks for the ideas, Matty. I'll use them for my next D&D campaign setting.
Five seconds into this video, and i'm already laughing my ass off.
OMG, I can't even get past the first 10 seconds. Hell is at the center of the Earth, Hell is expanding, and Hell is responsible for global warming! That is a new level of stupid I can't even fathom. I have to steel myself before I can even watch the rest of this!
Oh my, Martymer is back, that's both a joyous occasion and a frightening perspective because you know something dumb this way comes.
Grabs popcorn
Good to see you again Martymer. Love your clear concise presentations.
Man, these people never cease to entertain.
Hey man great video! Another outstanding data point supporting heliocentrism is sidereal time (or sidereal motion); the motion of earth relative to the *"fixed" distant cosmos & celestial sphere.* For those that aren't familiar, stars move east-west roughly *1 degree extra per day* because earth has moved just that little bit more around the sun in 24 hours. The constellation you observe tonight will not be in the same position as it was at the exact same time the previous night, but would have drifted ever so slightly to the west. This means that the celestial sphere pivots and rotates independent of the days; the sidereal 1 degree motions adding up to *180 degrees of rotation in half a year* (180 days), and *360 degrees in a completed year* or 365 days back to where it started. This is precisely why the visible constellations *change throughout the year* corresponding to changes in the seasons; what were once perpetually hidden behind sunlight in summer are now exposed in the winter night sky due to *our changing perspectives of the cosmos* caused by earth's orbit. The only difference in the circumpolar stars will be *purely rotational;* those that were at _upper culmination_ in summer will be at _lower culmination_ in winter and vice versa.
What happened to the other *5 days (and missing 5 degrees)* you ask? Well, this is precisely why we have *leap years!* :) It runs smoothly like clockwork only using the heliocentric model. The moon also completes an *extra orbit* relative to the celestial sphere throughout the month.
All hail Gurpflabts, the god of Convenient Examples, whose existence is proven by the mere fact that He is a convenient example to use to explain that defining your conclusion as being automatically true is utterly asinine!
Woo hoo! New Martymer *and* DM2525 in one day. And it's not even my birthday!
Great video, as ever. The level of stupid is humongous in this one.
Martymer 81, you should check the channel enslaved by no media. The amount of stupidity there is off the charts. Approach with caution, and oven mitts
'Science is useful' isn't testable? What do you call medicine, computers, space travel, etc.?
The concept of a test is very important to science, so we should be careful to get this right. A test is a procedure that we can perform which gives an idea a chance to be revealed as wrong. Medicine is not a procedure that could potentially reveal science as not useful, or at least it's not clear how medicine might reveal that.
To show that "science is useful" is a testable idea, we need to detail a procedure, and explain what outcome of that procedure would indicate that science is not useful.
Ansatz66
First you have to specify "science" as in which part of it. If medicin then we can make empirical observations of the medicinal effects and efficiency vs that of faith/Magic/homebrewWoo
Science wins by a landslide
"Science wins by a landslide."
It's not a test unless there is a chance of failing. The problem with testing science is that science always goes with whatever works, so science can never ultimately fail; it just changes direction. Therefore science cannot be tested.
Ansatz66 Hypothesis fail, the idea. Science is a method learn the difference, FFS.
"It's not a test unless there is a chance of failing. The problem with testing science is that science always goes with whatever works, so science can never ultimately fail; it just changes direction. Therefore science cannot be tested."
You misunderstand the concept of falsifiability. It is not that there is a chance of failing, it is that you can imagine a way in which the test could, in principle, be failed, even when as a matter of fact it never will be.
Your definition of what is testable makes it impossible to test propositions which are true, because a test of something which is true cannot in reality be failed. Is the sun hotter than absolute zero? Sorry, can't be tested, because there is no way that the result of that test would return as false.
Surely you see how absurd your position is?
Great video as always Martymer! I always look forward to these notifications
It's a miracle! I was wondering when Marty would publish a new video and what do I find when I get home?
But seriously: Another video well worth watching. Thank you.
Ok i thought the "hell expanding=global warming" thing was bad but holy fucking shit did "stars are not suns they are actually chunks of ruby and saphire in the kuiper belt, giving the illusion of red/blue shifting" fucking FLOOR ME. For the first time in a good minute i actually facepalmed by instinct, not for comedic effect.
I love how your face says "Hey guys, I got something super cringey to talk about" before you even say anything.
As far as the universe being geocentric, the universe would have to be smaller than the orbit of Neptune since it is very close there where orbiting the earth in a day would require the object to move faster than light. He appears to like to pretend in the craziest shit anyway, so he probably thinks the planets are just lights in the sky, like the flatwits do.
*sees geocentric stuff*
*links CHL’s entire geocentrism series*
My favourite stupid-debunker is back! Yay! Welcome back, legend! Missed your videos.
I never realized how far jupiter is from mars. Gonna check this out.
Great presentation, as usual. Now my weekend is complete.
That analogy at the end. I'm gonna need to use that.
How is it I am good without a God but look forward to a Martmer 81 video?
Apparently, Martymer 81 has a greater gravitational mass than Matty's God!
Conclusion, Martymer 81 is the sun and essential for life.
Same here man. I don't necessarily agree with his atheistic views, I do however enjoy the knowledge of science on every video.
[pinecones intensifies]
We define things into existence all the time. We literally do define a million dollars into a suit case. Otherwise it's just a bunch of sheets in a container .
Those are definitions. The world is a lot more subjective than I think you prefer to think
These are social constructs, which we "create" through social behaviors, and definitions, (semantic agreements,) are only a part of that process.
You still can't define a god into existence, god won't start performing miracles just because we agree he does.
Another way of thinking of it is like an opinion --- we judge, subjectively, money to have value. We don't judge it to exist, whatever we call money exists regardless. (Not recognizing dollar bills as currency wouldn't make those sheets of paper disappear!) We can judge the idea of God to be good or bad, but we can't make the idea of God true or false.
martymer should have a debate on geocentrism, flat earth, e universe or something.
Had the displeasure of dealing with Matty on Twitter a couple of months ago. You got deeper into his woo pile than I'd ever tread.
Spirit science just dropped an hour and twenty minute long video on drugs and consciousness. I'd love to hear your always amusing break down of it.
I noticed there were a couple of times you didn't have oven mitts on. I feel we should send you more.
19:50 If you look really, really, _really_ closely, you can see the Borg invading Wolf 359.
I am so glad I subscribed, finally new vids, congrats!
The only "properly basic" belief I can think of is that I am some kind of agent existing in some kind of way. All external reality could be some sort of illusion of some Cartesian Demon, but I can be secure in the basic belief that I exist as a localized awareness and agency. Anything after that, imo, depends on observation, or in the case of logical systems like formal logic and math, are dependent on devised axioms and rules.
munstrumridcully hmmmm existence, yes. But agency? That's a tough one.
"It's magic, bitch!" 😂
Great video. Thank you!
Godless Iowan got me interested to subscribe. I like your stuff.
Martymer 81
Great video as always.
holy shit, a video.
Martymer, here's a slightly off-topic question (global warming was mentioned...). A few months ago I had a discussion with a Brazilian physicist that doesn't believe CO2 causes global warming. His arguments are basically the following:
1 - The atmosphere heats from the bottom up. The Sun heats the surface of the Earth, and heat then goes up from there. Cooler molecules can't heat up hotter molecules, so the higher cooler layers of the atmosphere can't heat up the lower ones, and so forth down to the surface. I believe this is outright wrong when it comes to heat transferred via infrared.
2 - CO2 infrared abortion bands don't match the emissions from the Earth's surface at typical temperatures, so it's an unlikely candidate to be the main greenhouse gas. If I remember correctly, he blames water instead.
3 - CO2 concentration is too low to have a significant effect. Even at today's historic high it's just 400 parts per million.
So Martymer, what I wanted to ask is your opinion on argument 1 and if you know of any peer reviewed papers about experiments addressing argument 3. I mean laboratory experiments, comparing simulated atmospheres with CO2 concentration in the relevant range (say 400ppm versus 250ppm) and showing an impact on temperature. I don't know where or how to search for this, but I figured you might.
1. This is wrong. Most of the sun's heat gets trapped by chemicals in the upper atmosphere and the earth's magnetic field.
2. Water vapour is, indeed, a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, you can feel just how potent it is for yourself the morning after a cloudless night. Without clouds in the sky, and without the sun shining down to warm the planet, a lot of heat escapes on a cloudless day, making the next morning incredibly chilly compared to what you'd get on a cloud-covered night. The problem here is that it's so much more potent that if it was water vapour causing global warming, it would all be over by now. It would happen very quickly, a matter of months. Sadly, the warmer the planet gets due to CO2, the more water builds up in the atmosphere. Additionally, as the seas warm, they release methane as well, another very potent greenhouse gas. Eventually, one gas or another hits a point of no return, and Earth turns into Venus. Because that's what happened on Venus. If you look at it through a telescope, that's not the surface you're seeing, that's the sulfur dioxide cloud that covers the entire planet as the result of a runaway greenhouse effect, one that was probably caused by water vapour and CO2 combined. There won't be any water left there anymore though.
3. The concentration is not the issue. The problem is we're adding more CO2 to the atmosphere than the carbon cycle can keep up with. I recommend you watch Potholer54's videos on the carbon cycle to get a more concise understanding on why and how CO2 causes gradual warming.
Insta-like of this video like every new one from Marty (and never regretted it, either :)
soriac
*notices martymer video* OwO Whats this???
So much stupidity, so little time.
I didn't wear my oven mitt. It still stings.
Pinning saturn was really interesting i mean every planed looks like they follow the sun as well. Exception of saturn it looked nice.
The shirt is killing on video.
But the pine cones man, the pine cones!!!!
Well said thank you
Good to know that Hell really is a giant lava pit... that magically affects spirits...
at least he believes the earth is spherical... right???
Yup! Title checks out! Great work as always, Marty. You are doing those capable of rational thought in this world a huge favor.
_It does require maturity to realize that models are to be used,_
_but not to be believed._
*- Henri Theil*
I happen to have an ultra high tech device that proves the heliocentric model of the Earth. It works on the very complicated mathematical calculation of 360/24=15 and so far it has been infallible. In both the geocentric and heliocentric models the Earth is considered round either as a disk or a sphere respectively. and that from noon till noon is generally a 24 hour time frame. This means that while the Sun is visible it tracks 15 degrees each hour. Now here's where my device comes into play. Just to be fair we'll use the equinox when the path of the Sun is directly above the equator. I set up my ultra high tech device called a Sundial at a location on the equator and we confirm that the sun is indeed tracking 15 degrees each hour. But in the geocentric model if the Sun tracts 15 degrees at the Equator it doesn't track the same 15 degrees at either the Arctic or Antarctic Circles but my Sundial does confirm that same 15 degree track no matter where on Earth I set it up and no matter what time of year I measure it. This can only be explained by a spherical rotating Earth and a Sun so distant from it that all points on the globe are relatively the same distance from it. Therefore the Earth MUST be spherical. What are your thought Martymer 81?
Stars are Kuiper Belt rocks made of ruby and sapphire, giving the appearance of being red or blue shifted. *facepalm* It seems the subject missed the word 'shifted'.
Even about 2,300 years ago, Aristarchus showed the Sun to be many times further away than the Moon and therefore many times bigger. Given the estimated size of the Moon compared to Earth derived from observing a lunar eclipse, the Sun also showed as much bigger than the Earth.
His method was simple, anyone can repeat it for themselves.
grahvis but see that involves measurable observation. Flatters and geocentrics cant do that sort of thing, or can but resort to their own outlandish hypotheses as the explanation
T. M. Shannon
The Aristarchus experiment is so simple and logical that no flat earther I've commented to, will ever discuss it. They avoid it like the plague.
grahvis of course they will. It proves them equivocally wrong because its so easily repeatable - like watching the sun rising over the eastern horizon and setting over the western horizon.
Which, incidentally, kicks the crap out of the sun circling forever overhead, but flatters cant handle raw truth like that
T. M. Shannon
"that involves measurable observation. Flatters and geocentrics cant do that sort of thing"
I agree for flatties, but geocentrists never had a problem with Aristarchus' experiments for most of our recorded history. At least until XIX century, when all reasonable people had abandoned geocentrism and only the nutters remained in that field.
Federico Giana yes, true, but the measurable observations im talking about involve a telescope, some astronomical knowledge, and the ability to comprehend that "wandering stars" (planetes, the planets) orbiting the central earth shouldnt loop back on themselves, as they appear to do.
Im okay with the geocentric model. I accept its place in philosophy and science, it tskes into account our viewpoint (perceptible and cognitive) in most cases can be explained as a series of expanding circles.
Street number
Street
Suburb
State
Country
Planet
System
Galactic Arm
Galaxy
Group
Universe...
Still good in my book, philosophically, and in that way happily coexisting with the present heliocentric model.
Holy shit... is it time for your once a decade video already? Awesome! (thats me hinting at you to make more videos)
It's been really hard for me to find the time to make videos these past few months, due to work and family issues. There have been medical issues in the family. Nothing life-threatening or anything, but serious enough to result in me having to take on an additional workload at home. This is temporary, but it'll be a while longer.
I like this guy! Excellent video.
Plus, if the earth was melting from the inside it would make the ground warmer. Not just the air.
"Your mountains of evidence is wrong, I have a strong feeling!"
Must be hard work keeping up that dissonance, Matty...
Could you elaborate, i am rather unsure on what your point is.
The guy he made the video about, basically dude is saying " yur evidence is wrong cuz much feels"
Didn't think it was that complicated of a comment.
It would make more sense if he said the stars are the asteroids and comets in orb cloud but he said Kuiper belt so
yay he is back!
Geocentrist can say that it will work because of Relativity but their model is still too complicated since it will be hard to navigate the Solar System if you have Neptune travelling faster than the speed of light.
Geocentrism is good when the frame of reference is on earth but horrible when the frame of reference goes beyond the earth.
New vid! Thanks Martymer.
I missed you!
I want Martymer Brand Certified Oven Mitts merch!
Always see Team Skeptic comments on channels im on. Love it! What's up Skeptic?!
The verse in Isayah refers to "Earth" as in the landmass the people of the bible lived in, which can be deduced from other verses. Since they had the means to godlessly find out that the land they lived in wasn't perfectly circular, we can only conclude that this verse was a subjective observation (which is pretty true, not that it takes much effort to turn 360°) or more poetry (not like they had very many other forms of entertainment).
Ruby and sapphire in the Kuiper belt? That's almost poetic!
And that hell is expanding we can see daily in international politics, thanx to some idiots at power.
An afterthought: Perhaps it is not rubies and sapphires but blue and red LEGO bricks?
Matty!
Oooh, spirograph.