How do you know we are in a solar system that is moving? When has that be proven? That is simply an assumption.
I took that directly out of Sungenis’s argument.
Alec said that when considering relative motions inside the solar system, the influence of nearby stars is “vanishingly small.”
Sungenis countered that the sun(and thereby the entire solar system) is affected by the stars a great deal, so much that it is moving around the universe at breakneck speed – 500 miles per second – due to influence from the stars. OK, so far so good.
The next move on Sungenis’ part was the one where I call “foul.” That is, he claimed that because there is significant influence on the sun(and thereby the solar system) this proves Alec wrong – after all, it is absurd to say that the forces on the sun and the solar system are “vanishingly small” when in fact, they are causing motion to the tune of 500 miles per second.
If you didn’t know and understand what Alec had actually claimed, then by itself, out of context, Sungenis’s “counter-claims” in the previous paragraph make sense. The misleading part is that those counter claims do not match the claims made by Alec.
So the real absurdity is Sungenis’s claims against Alec. It’s as if Alec claimed the sun rises in the east, and then Sungenis said, “you are absolutely wrong, because the sun is hotter than the earth.” True statement, but nothing to do with Alec’s claim therefore it has no bearing on Alec’s claims whatsoever.
For Sungenis to claim that his argument does discredit Alec is a sign that either Sungenis is incapable of logical discourse, or that he is biased to the point that he is willing to deceive the public to make his point – presumably because he couldn’t make his point without lying. So you choose which one to believe – either Sungenis has absolutely no clue what he’s saying, or he knows what he’s saying and is being intentionally deceptive. I don’t see any other possibilities, given what he said in this discussion. It is simply not possible to attribute any merit whatsoever to the claim that he even caused a speck of doubt about Alec’s claim.
That’s why I say that, having observed this single argument, I cannot take anything Sungenis says as true without a huge grain of salt.
In my example, I am NOT moving. Let’s say I am standing in the middle of a group of 10 people. They begin to move in a circle around me. They are moving and I am not yet all of them will come into my view.
OK, relative to the earth, you are not moving (rotating, but I’ll get to that later). I’ll grant you that. Relative to your fixed position on earth, yes, the others are moving you. Likewise, they are also going around in a circle with respect to the surface of the earth and you’re not.
Here’s the “but” part. You are not moving w.r.t. the earth,
but since the earth is part of the solar system, which btw Sungenis said was moving at 500 mps, then you are, in effect, a passenger on the earth, and since you and the merry-go-round are fixed to the earth, then you and the merry-go-round are also moving around the universe at about 500 mps.
So if you claim you are not moving around (rotating as a separate issue) is true if you limit your “universe” by looking only at whether you are moving along the earth’s surface or not. You are, though, moving at breakneck speed compared to the rest of the universe. If you don’t believe that, then you surely can’t believe Sungenis because I got my figures from him.
Geocentrism states that the earth is still. It does not move. It does not rotate. You will immediately say this is insane. But why? In 1887 an experiment took place that was to prove that the earth moves called the **Michelson-Morley **experiment. This was such a failure that it was tried over and over. Instead of accepting the conclusion of the experiment, the earth is at rest, Einstein was forced to come up with an explanation and Einstein’s theory of relativity was born.
Einstein found that there is no experiment in the world that is possible to distinguish
absolute moving in a straight line at a constant speed from
absolutely sitting still, as long as the measurements can only be made from inside the reference frame of the object in question. In fact, there is no such thing as “absolutely still” or “absolutely moving at a constant speed in a straight line” unless you define it in reference to some agreed upon external reference frame.
In simpler terms, that means that if you are on a train and the track is straight and smooth, you cannot tell whether you’re moving forward, backward, fast, slow, or sitting still from the way it feels to you. If there are no windows, or the window shades are closed, then you cannot tell by the way it feels whether you are moving or not.
In fact, you can bring any measuring instrument in there that you want, as long as it doesn’t take a reference from something outside the train, that instrument cannot give you the answer either. So from inside the train, with the windows closed, there is no instrument that can detect whether you’re moving down the track or not.
So does that mean no statements can be made about the motion of the train on the track? Not at all. All you have to do is look outside the window. Are the buildings and trees you see out the window racing to the east? Well, if you define yourself or the train as the reference frame, then yes they are indeed. But if you define the reference frame as that of the earth itself, then they are not moving east, you are moving west.
(continued)
