Why is it so hard for you to tell me what the paper is about and how it relates to your world view?
Why should I spend my time reading a lengthy article that you posted when you refuse to write one sentence about it? The entirety of this thread is in response Goku. Once again you seem to be lost in translation. You do not have to do anything which includes responding with ZERO to contribute.
Maybe a recap of the relevant parts of the thread would be productive, if for no other reason than to keep the thread on topic and moving forward.
In the OP (which is a copy paste from another thread) you talk a lot about everyone being indoctrinated into heliocentrism, how a literal reading of the Bible is awesome, and how you are skeptical of the shape of the Earth being an oblate spheroid instead of a perfect sphere or something. Popoi mentioned that the difference in radius looking at the polls and equator is about 21 kilometers, or about a 0.3% difference (source wiki), which is far too small to notice in a NASA photograph as you originally complained.
In your first original post in this thread you talk about the Axis of Evil, which I have talked about before, and you even "liked" my post about it in the other thread, so I guess I understand that to your satisfaction. Then you moved on to a bunch of theoretical physics for no discernable reason (at least to me) other than to perhaps label it as 'hogwash' and through association make heliocentrism 'hogwash'. You then spend a lot of time quoting people talking about Einstein's relativity (I thought you didn't care about Einstein?) and how according to Einstein's theory you can make the Earth the center of the universe. I and others have repeatedly discussed why this doesn't fly; you can make any point you desire the "center".
You then mention the Michelson Morley experiment with the ether and confused not detecting the ether with the Earth being stationary. You then mock Lorentz transformations, which are explained via Einstein's special relativity, and then without appearing to grasp the irony quote Einstein himself. For someone that doesn't care one iota about Einstein, you sure do like to quote him and use his theory a lot.
You then make the point that Hubble's redshift/law where the recessional velocity of a given galaxy is proportional to its distance from Earth due to the expansion of the universe makes the Earth look like the center. Of course, in an expanding universe, you will get the exact same pattern no matter where you are in that universe.
You say Einstein's relativity has not been confirmed, no experimental evidence to support it. Piasan gave you a list of the various things about the theory from time dilation to the curvature of space that has been empirically confirmed. Piasan also asked you about retrograde motion and the phases of Venus and Mercury. You have never responded to Piasan's query about retrograde motion and the phases of the planets.
Then we have the detour of the black hole giving off a B flat note, which you used to prove that the stars sing, yet you don't believe black holes exist, go figure.
Then we get our infamous Mach's principle paper of 14 pages all out of the blue with exactly zero commentary from you. A few posts later you tell Piasan that the point of you bringing up the paper is to show that you can put the Earth in the center of your reference point and the math works out just fine. As both Piasan and myself keep telling you, you can make any point your center of reference and the math will work out (assuming you do the math correctly). It isn't much of an argument for the Earth being the center when literally the exact same process can show that any point you choose can be the center. You never did answer Piasan on this point, but instead just claimed, bare assertion, that you have already shown your view to be correct.
You then bring up the 'universe from nothing' lecture by Krauss, which I responded to. The salient question from that part of the thread, which you never did attempt to answer, is how space, which was once thought to be empty, being full of energy, in any way supports or deals with whether or not the Earth is stationary?
You also brought up how quasar distribution, which should be 'even' throughout the sky in an isotropic universe without a preferred direction, shows unevenness (anisotropies) in relation to the solar system itself. An interesting find; I was aware of the axis of evil before you brought it up, but not this. I will have to look it up before commenting on that if you are willing to have an actual conversation.
Next, you make several posts about how Einstein's relativity is wrong. Hypothetically let's assume Einstein was wrong and the universe is Newtonian as your various sources seem to favor, how would that in any way support geocentrism?
When asked what science does YEC agree with, you come up with another paper/abstract that uses Mach's principle to essentially say that you can mathematically describe a stationary Earth in which the entire universe revolves around the Earth. I feel like a broken record at this point, but you can literally do the exact same mathematical calculations with any point in the universe. We could travel to Jupiter, the Sun, another star, another galaxy, and do the exact same mathematical tricks and show that wherever we are we can describe it as the center with everything revolving around us. Just because we happen to live on Earth making Earth the natural reference point we humans would choose, does not mean the Earth is the actual center of the universe.
You bring up the Axis of Evil again, and then go on a kind of rant against modern physics and how great God and the Bible are in your next few posts.
Along with a few other things, I then ask you to explain how your world view explains retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter revolve around Jupiter. You insist you have dealt with this despite that you have never even addressed it, and demand that I do your homework for you and find your answer to my question in a paper.
Did I miss anything important to the subject at hand?
Also, I don't think the paper addresses my original question: how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that the moons of Jupiter orbit Jupiter? Because you are oblivious to whom and what Ernst Mach believed his entire worldview is indeed that of mine in regards to a Geocentric worldview. When ever you should hear of any astronomer, astrobiologist, cosmologist or physicist mention Ernst Mach they are all well aware its like a code word for Geocentrisim. Your obvious obliviousness to this fact is indeed not my problem Goku. How does Mach's principle explain this in a geocentric world view? Again you are lost Goku, if you can not stay up with the conversation or understand its contents then no need for a reply from you. Less you merely wish to show disdain and or contempt for its content, which is your prerogative. That is not the only paper iv'e shown in regards. And No i will not even tell you where its posted. That you will have to find and indeed READ yourself if you wish. This will be the finality in response to your continued lack of reading ability and or understanding of the material provided.
Since you are so well versed in these matters you should be able to easily answer my query. This is a forum meant for communication, dialogue, not mere flinging of links/articles at each other; articles are meant to enhance dialogue, not be a substitute for it.
So, how does your world view explain retrograde motion, the phases of Venus, and that Jupiter's moons orbit Jupiter?