There are, in my experience, quite a lot of people interested in astronomy and its related fields, astrophysics and cosmology; also, in how astronomy can be used to test theories of physics.
Some such people come to this topic with backgrounds and experiences far different from those of the regulars who hang out in internet discussion fora such as Starship Asterisk*. This can lead to them asking questions that seem, on the surface, to be quite strange, even hostile to science. Yet I feel their questions are often good ones, in the sense that they are sensible given their curiosity and background.
Here's an example of what I mean: John Martin posted a number of questions, in comments on Tom Bridgman's blog entry Geocentrism: Does NASA use Geocentrism?^. Some of the questions are quite good ones; some are not.
Here are a few of the good ones; good in the sense that they show a curiousity, a questioning, that I think we should encourage (I've kept the original numbering; that's why they appear out of order). They also reveal, I feel, some fundamental misunderstandings of the nature of science, or perhaps just of physics. Such misunderstandings are, in my experience, all too common; worse, they get in the way of fully appreciating what the strengths and limitations of science (physics) are. As such, they provide a great place to start a dialogue!
Q10 – If the earth moves around the E-M barycenter every month, why don’t we observe a monthly parallax of the sun?
Q6 – The Foucault pendulum is routinely used as apparent evidence for the moving earth. The pendulum is said to swing in a plane parallel to the fixed stars, whilst the earth rotates underneath the pendulum. How does modern science explain the force produced by the fixed stars that causes the pendulum to swing in a fixed plane relative to the stars?
Q7 -Why does the pendulum apparently overcome the gravity fields of the sun and moon and not swing in a plane following those bodies and yet not overcome the gravity fields of the distant stars?
Q1 - I have read [...] the claim [...] that there is no aberration of moon light observed. If the earth and moon are orbiting the sun at 30km/s and the solar system is moving through space at about 380km/s then the aberration angel of 4' 20" and including the transit delay, the total aberration angel is then 8' 40". Can you locate any published data that supports an observed aberration of moon light of 8’ 40”? If no observations of aberration of moon light have been observed, does that mean the earth is stationary relative to the moon?
Q2 - If the positions of the planets are not known as they are in the real, but only the apparent positions are known as observed from earth, how then does an almanac take into account the aberration of light from the planets when calculating predicted positions of the planets as observed from earth? In other words, if aberration of light from the planets is used in the almanac calculations, what aberration is used and how do we know what the real aberration is? If aberration of light from the planets is not used in the almanac calculations, is that an implicit admission that the calculations are either ad hoc, or perhaps the earth really is stationary relative to the planets?
Note: in case you hadn't already guessed, it's not that I can't answer John Martin's questions myself, but that I think inviting him here, and engaging in a discussion of his questions is a great way to deepen and broaden a general appreciation of astronomy.
^ Tom has an excellent blog called Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy.