The Definition of Science From The Oxford Advanced American Dictionary and How The Heliocentric Theory Fails to Satisfy the Scientific Criterion
“Science is the knowledge about the structure and behavior of the natural and physical world, based on facts that you can prove by experiments. Scientific experiments employ the use of independent variables in order to test various hypothesis in an accurate and fundamentally viable way.”
--Oxford Dictionary
What is an Independent Variable?
In a scientific experiment there are multiple kinds of variables: independent, dependent, and controlled variables.
What is an Independent Variable?
In formal experimental designs, an independent variable is the variable the experimenter controls. Basically, it is the component you choose to change in an experiment. This variable is not dependent on any other variables. For example, in the plant growth experiment, the independent variable is the light color. The light color is not affected by anything. You will choose different light colors like green, red, yellow, etc... You are not measuring the light.
What is a Dependent Variable?
A dependent variable is the measurement that changes in response to what you changed in the experiment. This variable is dependent on other variables, hence the name. For example, in the plant growth experiment, the dependent variable would be plant growth. You could measure this by measuring how much the plant grows every two days. You could also measure it by measuring the rate of photosynthesis. Either of these measurements are dependent upon the kind of light you give the plant.
The Heliocentric Theory fails as a scientific model in that it fails to employ the use of independent, dependent, and controlled variables, but rather, depends upon the use of untested and unfalsifiable claims to assert its hypotheses.
The Heliocentric Model is essentially a religion, a self-admitted, non-empirical conjecture that falls under the category of Theoretical Physics, and exists today as an untested and unfalsifiable claim by proper empirical methodologies.
The magic of most Theoretical Science Theory is that it can never be proven nor disproven, since venturing inside a Black Hole, traveling out billions of light years, or detecting invisible Gravity, etc…to gather empirical data is just more science fiction. Hence, by the very standards of science, such ideas fail and are unfalsifiable claims, and are therefore, unverifiable, and invalid as workable theories, according to the rules of scientific method. You can say pretty much anything you want now in Quantum Mechanics and Astrophysics, and claim it reconciles General Relativity with Quantum Physics without literally testing it, or even having the ability to test it.
It’s all a numbers and abstract systems game…not anything tangible.
In fact, the best theories are the ones they can never test because then they can just make a Hollywood movie about it and eventually make it true though cinematic repetition, in the same way Gravity and The Heliocentric illusion became true through Jesuit driven Hollywood brainwashing and Jesuit crafted educational textbooks.
What Modern Astrophysics and Modern Cosmology have become is nothing more than speculative assumptions, built upon unconfirmed conjecture, heaped on top of mountains of blind assertions, covered in mounds of hypothetical theorizing, topped with postulated science fiction, and honey glazed with “Mythematical” equations that lead nowhere and bear no resemblance in any way to, nor reflect, the observable empirical world.