Lol. You again. You're just so confused. Bending science to fit your religion. Only using the small parts that work and leaving out everything that contradicts it. Cognitive dissonance.

What do you say to the fact that a number of scientists in this documentary (and even the narrator) have come forward to say that their words have been edited to misrepresent what they believe?

Conspiracy theory within religion. God is truly evil and the bible is just trying to trick you into believing he is good. Plot twist Jesus is the Antichrist.

What about the scientific evidence for the earth being old?

You believe in a story book. Believe it is god's word etc.

The earth rotates, and from our perspective we are the centre but in reality we are not

It is. It does.

Guess i'll be waiting for a long time

I listened to some of that interview you posted. He doesn't say that there is observational and experimental evidence. He just states that there has been no proof that is is NOT true. That argument can be made for just about anything. That's the same shit people say when you ask them for proof on how the bible is true. And they say " well theres no proof it isnt".

And the earth is young compared to what? Age can be relative as well. Im 23 years old. Compared to a person whos 90, i am young. But compared to someone that was just born, i am old.

So the earth could be extremely extremely old, or it could be extremely young. What are you comparing it to?

Wait so youre telling me you believe that the earth is the center of the universe?

I find it easier to believe that were living in the matrix.

Well geocentrism isn't technically wrong: we are at the center of the observable universe; there's no direction in which we are more limited than another.

Its all relative, if i go to the moon i can watch the earth spin below me. If i moved all of the equipment they use to view the observable universe 1000 light-years away in any direction to another planet, there would still be no direction in which we are more limited than another. But you would know for a FACT that you weren't in the previous "center of the observable universe" you were in before. So how can one really say for sure? You can't.

I believe that the universe, life, consciousness, humans, and the earth, is something sooo far beyond our comprehension that we couldn't even fathom it. Almost like trying to look at the 4th dimension from the 3rd.

Who knows, what if consciousness is the center of the universe. And the universe is inside of each of us, and its being projected out through our eyes? Whos to say thats not the case? What if consciousness creates reality and not the other way around? What if this really is a computer simulation being ran a thousand years in the future? What if all those cave drawing and Egyptian carvings of space ships, was actually us in the future who figured out time travel and went back in time?

You see what im getting at here? The possibilities are so infinite, it's hard to say that ANY of us know what the fuck any of this is for sure, scientist or not.

We just, don't, know.

I'm not assuming anything, and i am not cementing my beliefs in any one specific theory. That was the point of my post.

I do believe that there are things greater than us, that there are higher powers out there who created this universe ( But not in a religious biblical type god kind of way ) and that this life does have meaning, and that there are answers to all of life's greatest questions out there. I had the most vivid mind blowing experience on DMT. And that experience alone is enough to make me think that no matter what you think you know, your'e probably wrong. So i wont cement my beliefs like i said.

But seriously, before you start cementing your beliefs in this, don't you think you should like... see the movie first?

Show me these FACTS. Facts means hard evidence. So far all you have linked is some movie trailer, and audio of an interview. Im interested. Im not arguing with you or anything by the way, im just interested thats all. I wanna see the evidence.

One more thing, hypothetically speaking, lets say we are the center of the universe, and it was all created to be centered around us. It doesn't really answer that many questions.

But these arent FACTS. Tom Campbell has a whole bunch of talks and books on why the universe is a simulation, and how life is really like a super advanced computer game, he takes quantum theory into account and everything as well serious evidence that it could be true. It is extremely convincing. It doesn't mean that its true.

I think it should be called the Copernican Theory rather than a Principle.

Okay, for the sake of the debate say that what you're saying is true, we are the center, it all revolves around us. What does that mean?

It doesnt answer any important questions like why? or how? or who created it? what is this life? or who are we? etc.... We're right where we've always been. No answers to any important questions. Nothing changes.

If the creator/s wanted us to find him/her/them, he/she/they would just come chill with us. Not send us on this fucking crazy Easter egg hunt and waste our time.

Im not one to get into religion so im outta this conversation. Once all that bible stuff starts flying around im outta here. Science is hard 100% undeniable fact. Religion and the bible can be interpreted by anyone in a number of different ways.

It cannot be fact, and open for your own personal interpretation at the same time.

Nice talking. Ill watch the movie when it comes out

Michelson-Gabe build us a picture with a stationary Earth and a rotating universe.

What?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1925ApJ....61..140M

And the axis of evil is aligned with the solar system, not the Earth.

Michelson-Gale* can be interpreted as the ether rotating around the Earth, considering Michelson-Morley didn't detect motion of the Earth.

No, that's a problem. Michelson-Gale would impose a static aether and a rotating earth (rotating aether in your world), However MM imposed a static aether with respect to the earth (the lab actually). Only a Lorentzian aether can get out of this. That still leaves you with one extra assumption and no reason why the measured result should have agreed with the prediction.

We're dead center of a spherical universe on a stationary Earth.

There is a very significant (hundreds of kilometers per second) motion with respect to the CMB rest frame. In order to keep the world static you have to move the entire universe with no explanation. Proper motion in quasars and stellar parallaxes again requite either the earth to move or distant objects to accelerate (some beyond the speed of light) with respect to earth, again the latter has no justification. Quotes taken out of context won't change the science.

We see a spherical observable universe like any observer, a cavity defined by the speed of light.

We've found things that surpass the speed of light and I'm well aware of what it means to have a stationary Earth. Stellar parallaxes and quasars are not a problem for geocentrism.

No. Nothing has ever been confirmed to move faster than the speed of light. Stellar parallax and quasars do cause a problem because you have no explanation as to why they should do that. In science that just isn't good enough.

The data suggests a non-relative, preferred reference frame for the Earth.

No it doesn't. Point me to a piece of evidence you think undeniably proves this.

You don't prove things in science. The axis of evil does not prove the earth is special, everything has a chance of occurring in probability so you ask "how unlikely is this". Given the errors in the axis it's probably not that unlikely. It also wouldn't prove the earth was special, it would be aligned with the solar system and any planet which shares the inclination.

We have experimental evidence easily interpreted as the Earth is stationary

Or there being no aether with there being no evidence to uniquely support its existence, your entire argument seems to revolve ignoring possibilities.

Stellar parallax-aberration is geocentric.

No. The original expressions are not justified or derived, just written down. Without the original motivation the derivation is worthless, there is no way to check if it is physically meaningful or just set up to get the right answer.

Quasars show proper motion due to relativistic aberration, not just round the sun but also the galaxy. The result you posted about time dilation was controversial at the time, a) because it assumes models of quasar variation and b) people weren't happy with the way it dealt with the fact you do not see the same part of the accretion disk due to k-corrections. People are now using methods with fewer assumption which fit the standard cosmological model (including time dilation).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13914.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.5191

On the Muons, if you read it you would see:

This value is 99.4% of c.

Not faster than light.

The probability is higher that we are living in the Matrix.

Yea, ive read all about it, simulation theory is very interesting. And during my breakthrough dmt experience, i kept having this weird realization " life is like the sims, life is like the sims, life is like the sims "

was very weird

Okay, as long as we're going there... what's the verifiable difference between living in an ultra high resolution, Matrix-like simulation created by a fantastically advanced metaprogrammer versus a universe created by an omnipotent diety versus continuous hallucinations from the observer's deranged mind?

Does it matter?

What's your opinion about this? http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-galileo-controversy

You feel that your life needs explanation and have to affirm that within yourself to have purpose. Thats ok man. Most if not all religion has ties to astrology I cant be convinced of a god or even gods for that matter.

I dont try to persuade others into my way of thinking. I see no reason like religion does all the time. If it were real then there would be no need to convince me or anyone else. Why do you think that is?

Now you want to have affirmation that you were put here at this time for a reason. I dont instead I want to belive that I didnt get here for a purpose instead I will make my own reason thru actions that I control and outcomes I make happen.

I dont feel the need to ask for forgiveness to prior acts that I have committed in order to feel less guilt. Its absurd to me to do that. My actions have made me who I am and I embrace my past good and bad. I see no reason to harbor guilt for it as I did it for a reason at the time.

Now when I die then its over. Why is there a need to feel you have a sence of afterlife? Its because people fear death. I dont understand that in the slightest. Now to me religion is a form of control. Its merely what is the most popular stories at the time you are alive that you find yourself.

Control is the only real religion. Thats something you can belive. All thru time man has craved it as its the hardest thing to truly obtain. Its why slavery was so accepted as many can feel a type of control. Humanity is a race that craves control and structure to varying degrees.

We love the illusion of freedom as it lets us feel good about our leaders and nations. We die for those reason by the millions. Because we are told someone else wishes us to not have them when we are made to think that someone else that believes a slightly different religion did the act that imposed our freedom.

Now I would like to hear your side of reasoning. I feel no need to dismiss you. I wont insult your beliefs. I warn you that there is no way you will convince me out of mine thou.

If you will permit I will ask questions about yours thou.