Changes

: Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong.  Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory.  It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory.  It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else.  The theory is not used for anything.  Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory.  Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling.  I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia?  And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself.  One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

: Now you're just being willfully obtuse and can't seem to admit when you are wrong.  Of course geocentric theory is a scientific theory.  It is also a thoroughly disproven scientific theory.  It is not the theory behind calculating rocket trajectories or anything else.  The theory is not used for anything.  Assuming an alternate frame of reference from a mathematical point of view does not equate to subscribing to the geocentric theory.  Why you choose to ignore the difference is mind boggling.  I don't know what reference I could give you that would satisfy your verbal gymnastics... Perhaps just looking up the phrase "Geocentric Theory" in any credible encyclopedia?  And perhaps opening your mind enough to accept that there is a difference between "Geocentric Theory" and the word geocentric itself.  One can make geocentric assumptions, calculations, and coordinate reference frames without believing in Geocentric Theory. [[User:QNA|QNA]] 12:19, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

::RSchafly, you asked for a citation and I gave you a citation. I would suggest that the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that your ideosycratic definition of 'scientific theory' is accepted by the scientific community. NitramNos

::RSchafly, you asked for a citation and I gave you a citation. I would suggest that the burden of proof is now on you to demonstrate that your idiosyncratic definition of 'scientific theory' is accepted by the scientific community. NitramNos

:: The only citation is for some definitions of "scientific theory". They do not contradict the article.  There is already a CP entry on [[Scientific theory]], and you might want to read that for comparison.

:: The only citation is for some definitions of "scientific theory". They do not contradict the article.  There is already a CP entry on [[Scientific theory]], and you might want to read that for comparison.

Hey, why is the article locked, anyway?  Afraid someone might fix it? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)

Hey, why is the article locked, anyway?  Afraid someone might fix it? [[User:Ga ohoyt|Ga ohoyt]] 13:09, 8 June 2007 (EDT)