Was the early church right and Gallelio wrong?

[Drakkith]

Pardon me, I hope you are not referring to me.

I have a great knowledge of matters, maths and science.
Best in my year at school and hence I would imagine I am probably better at maths than you.
(based on probability theory).

I doubt that very much. This thread should be locked now that we know the OP has no interest in real science and only wants to be argumentative.

 

[AtomicJoe]

I doubt that very much. This thread should be locked now that we know the OP has no interest in real science and only wants to be argumentative.

I have made my case pretty clearly, I have listen to the arguments you provided and pointed out flaws in them.

A number of the points I made have not been adequately addressed IMO.

Would it not be better to let others address those points rather than sweeping them under the carpet?

I am a reasonable guy, my points are reasoned, well founded in maths and science.

What are you afraid of?

 

[AtomicJoe]

If the thread is locked please feel free to post or message me a better explanation.
Saying stuff like "OP has no interest in real science and only wants to be argumentative"
is grossly unfair.

 

[D H]

But all that stuff moving away from us, how do you explain that?
The redshift etc?

All the evidence and observation points to us being at the centre.

All of the evidence and observation points to us being just like every other point in the universe. An observer millions of light years away will see exactly the same thing we do: "All that stuff moving away from us, the redshift, etc."

The explosion of space idea is disconcertingly vague it has many problems.
Where did all this space come from?

The explosion of space idea is very well thought out. It explains "all the stuff moving away from us, the redshift, etc." As to where all this space came from, one of the longstanding hypotheses is absolutely nothing. There are lots of signs that do point to this. That said there are other conjectures, but finding which is right (if any) is going to be a bit challenging. What science can do right now is to explain the universe right down to a tiny, tiny interval after the big bang. That's a pretty big accomplishment, don't you think?

Seems to me there are huge problems as I hope I have pointed out, many centres millions of mile apart and apparently no centre at all.

Your "huge problems" are merely arguments from ignorance and appeals to incredulity. These are logical fallacies, the use of which is strongly disapproved of at this site. Don't go there.

The only word to describe that is nonsense!

There is a lot of nonsense out there, but is mostly from people who go "la la la I can't hear you" because science somehow threatens them. This site has a lot to offer to people who are willing to learn. I suggest that you try to learn rather than taking the "la la la, I can't hear you."

 

[AtomicJoe]

There is a lot of nonsense out there, but is mostly from people who go "la la la I can't hear you" because science somehow threatens them. This site has a lot to offer to people who are willing to learn. I suggest that you try to learn rather than taking the "la la la, I can't hear you."

I am not doing that though am I?
The problem is the opposite, other poster wants me to stop me hearing you!

So you really can't accuse me of that, that would be be ridiculous.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I am not doing that though am I?

Yes you are. I gave you the definition of an isotropic manifold and told you to go look up CMB data and see how it is evidence for our universe being isotropic. Obviously you haven't done that.

 

[D H]

Thread locked.