"However, no piece of evidence, experiment, observation or phenomenon can demonstrate that the earth is moving."
Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth; without such rotation there is no reason for the pendulum to rotate its plane of swing.
A non-rotating earth would require the outer planets and the stars to be moving at excessive (translight?) speeds. Measurements of relative motion between the earth and the nearer planets indicate that the other planets are not moving fast enough for the earth to be stationary.
Differences in escape velocity at the poles vs the equator wouldn't exist on a non-rotating planet. Similarly, satellites in geostationary orbit would be motionless over a non-rotating planet, and would simply fall down.
The Coriolus effect would not exist on a stationary earth.
Earthquakes, including those induced by placing explosives in geological fault-lines, can produce measurable changes in the eath's rotation. If the earth is in fact stationary, this would mean that events on earth can instantaneously affect the motions of stars many many light-years away.
The orbit of the earth around the sun is used as a baseline for measuring distance to stars using the parallax method - if the earth was stationary this ought not to be possible.
The relative frequency of shooting stars before/after midnight indicates that the earth is both rotating and moving through space.
The red-shift measued in stars' spectra changes in an annual cycle; if the earth is not circling the sun, then stars must be constantly accelerating/decelerating in something akin to a 'Mexican wave'.
"All motion is relative and trying to say which is really moving, is pointless. Copernicus simply chose a different coordinate system."
This applies to linear motion, but not necessarily to circular or rotatory motion, as shown by the above evidence, experiments, observations and phenomena.
The evidence stated above for reasons why the earth must be moving have been explained by geocentrists. It is quite strange that for an encyclopedia entry that seemed so open, the references that follow it are all anti-geocentrist. If the topic was truly researched, then there would also have been references sited that contained the geocentrist refutations of these articles and the geocentrist investigations and explanations for things such as Foucault's pendulum, the Coriolis effect, even parallax.
I'm not saying I am a "born-again" geocentrist, although after reading what they have to say for themselves, I'm a lot more open to their way of thinking than I used to be. But I would appreciate that if a subject is gonna be dealt with openly, that BOTH sides will be given a chance to speak, not just one.
I would like a chance to at least give some ideas for additional references or at least to have on this discussions page so that people can view all the evidence.
1. http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html - A critique of Danny Faulkner's critique of Bouw's book.
2. http://www.geocentricity.com/bibastron/ts_history/de_labore.pdf - Labour of the Sun by Walter van de Kamp, a difficult but educational read about worldviews, Einstein, and geocentricity.
3. http://users2.ev1.net/~origins/pdf/gvh.pdf - A lengthy article giving answers to many helio-centric questions including the coriolis effect, parallax, satellites, the pendulum.
4. http://www.mbowden.surf3.net/Geocexpl.htm - Some experimental evidence that CAN be ("can be" not "must be") interpreted in a geocentric way, given by Malcolm Bowden.
Although some of these may be catholic and they may not be right about EVERYTHING, but who is? I'm not giving these suggested articles as a catholic, because I am not one. I'm just a searcher for truth who sometimes finds interesting information in the strangest places.
I hope I haven't been too forceful in my approach. I'm only emphasizing the case for geocentricity, leaving out the case for helio-centricity, because the alternate view as been readily advocated already whereas the geocentric case has not.
Thanks for your time.
Amenyahu - you have almost completely reversed an edit that was made by a CreationWiki admin. Please be careful to restrict your activities from such changes. Deletions are not permitted, nor is it acceptable to change the context of a article to meet you individual perspective. Add a subsequent or contrary discussion to the bottom of an article or to the discussion page and allow admin edits to be final.
Clean up this paragraph - Necessary movement in the heliocentric mindset, that which is believed to be required for day/night, seasonal changes etc, is different to the necessary movement in the geocentric mindset. To the heliocentrist, the earth needs to orbit the sun. But it has already been implied by Ernst Mach, Hoyle, and others that the day/night sequence and the seasonal patterns are equivalent in either the geocentric or the heliocentric model, thus such "necessary" movement, as believed by the heliocentrist, is not necessary, but simply an important part of their model.
--Chris Ashcraft 00:06, 16 November 2005 (GMT)
Give me some hint as to what is wrong with that statement.
Also I've been looking at your pro-geocentric portion of the page. You say that some say one thing and others say another. I would like to point out that the first paragraph of that pro-geocentric section is the opinion that you side with. But you have not accurately described the other side, i.e., the opinion that I side with, which is in agreement with organisations such as www.geocentricity.com and catholic apologetics international and other geocentric websites and information sources. In fact, you have stated in the position that you are favourable with that the motion that a solar system, a sun-centred, earth moving system, produces is necessary. Yet for other side, you have also put your view that all motion is relative, thus no one can know, with no description whatsoever about the earth-centered, sun moving system. This appears to be lopsided approach talking about a geo-centricity that has to incorporate a form of heliocentricity, something that no-one that I know of amongst these major geocentric organisations would agree with.
To be honest, reading through a lot of geocentric information, possibly the vast majority the geocentric information on the internet, it is apparent that the statement you make in the pro-geocentric portion of the page doesn't accurately convey what they/we mean.
I would ask that you either allow me to properly put forward the opposition side, or phrase it more accurately. As it is linked with the statement I wrote which you withdrew, tell me what is needed to clean the paragraph up.
I simply and humbly ask that you accurately depict our point of view or allow me to by showing me what needs cleaning up in my statement.
You use necessary too many times in the same paragraph and the last sentence is a run-on. It is abscuring the point you are trying to make.
Try something like this - edit as needed.
To the heliocentrist, it seems necessary for the earth to orbit the sun to provide for day/night and seasonal changes. But it has already been implied by Ernst Mach, Fred Hoyle, and others that the day/night sequence and the seasonal patterns are equivalent in either the geocentric or the heliocentric model, thus such movement is not necessary, but simply an important part of their model. --Chris Ashcraft 18:27, 17 November 2005 (GMT)
The Bible supports the Helicentric Modle in my view
I see CreationWiki is trying nto to take any firm sides on things Creaitonsits disagree on, and I udnerstand that. There is in my view not enouhg here on the repsonses to verses taken to ellge a Geocentric modle. The Earth Hang son nohting definietly sounds mroe conssitent with a Heliocentric model to me.--MithirandirOlorin 03:27, 30 May 2011 (PDT)