Changes

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

::: I hope so. Nonsense like this should be removed from all the articles. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 15:04, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vandalise the page.  How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment?  I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance.  How did I "misstate" relativity?  I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment.  Stop vandalising the article.  If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument.  But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

You still haven't explained why you think the final theory book is "kooky", you don't discuss or argue your views at all, all you do here is insult me, insult my views, work and beliefs and vand<nowiki>alise</nowiki> the page.  How did I misstate the Michelsom-Morley experiment?  I accurately stated that most people took it as evidence of relativity rather than Geocentric theory, but minority views should be mentioned too, there is a huge a article on evolution for instance.  How did I "misstate" relativity?  I barely even mentioned it, except to say that most scientists believed in it, largely due to the M-M experiment.  Stop vandalising the article.  If you want to contribute to the article feel free, I think a section on evidence against Geocentric Theory could be beneficial to the article to give both sides of the argument.  But if you do want to contribute you should stop vandalising the article and start discussing changes on the talk page instead of insulting me. [[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:00, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I've added a section for evidence against Geocentric Theory, I don't have time to put much in it at the mo, I'll do that another day, unless someone else would like to contribute for a change instead of deleting stuff.[[User:Mmeelliissssaa|Mmeelliissssaa]] 09:25, 2 May 2007 (EDT)

I don't agree with the latest edits by Samd. Why do the moons of Jupiter necessarily cause a problem for geocentric theory? Why is it better to say, "the assumption that Earth lies at its center"? Maybe it was an assumption, or maybe not. Either way it could be geocentric theory. I am not sure it is even known why Ptolemy put the Earth at the center. What flaws were found in the 1500s? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)

I don't agree with the latest edits by Samd. Why do the moons of Jupiter necessarily cause a problem for geocentric theory? Why is it better to say, "the assumption that Earth lies at its center"? Maybe it was an assumption, or maybe not. Either way it could be geocentric theory. I am not sure it is even known why Ptolemy put the Earth at the center. What flaws were found in the 1500s? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 02:19, 2 November 2008 (EST)

: I don't know specifically how the moons affected it, but my understanding is not that the geocentric theory couldn't explain thing like them, but that in order to keep explaining all the new observations they had to keep making ''ad hoc'' variations to the theory.  A bit like the Big Bang today needs the fudge factors of dark matter and dark energy to keep the Big Bang as an explanation.  In the end, it just got to the point where there were so many fudge factors that the load on the theory became unrealistic.  Probably the key word is "adequately"; geocentric theory could explain it, but only at a stretch, not "adequately".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)

: I don't know specifically how the moons affected it, but my understanding is not that the geocentric theory couldn't explain thing like them, but that in order to keep explaining all the new observations they had to keep making ''ad hoc'' variations to the theory.  A bit like the Big Bang today needs the fudge factors of dark matter and dark energy to keep the Big Bang as an explanation.  In the end, it just got to the point where there were so many fudge factors that the load on the theory became unrealistic.  Probably the key word is "adequately"; geocentric theory could explain it, but only at a stretch, not "adequately".  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:14, 2 November 2008 (EST)