# Speed of Light



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2019)

I have been doing more studies on creation the past few years and came across this article. I’m familiar with Jason Lisle’s “One Way Speed of Light” explanation for distant starlight but googling tonight I found this article. Thought I’d share.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2019)

Mods. I meant speed of light in the title even though I made a reference to Dr. Lisle in the post. I would appreciate changing it.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 10, 2019)

Interesting.

I myself read quite a bit on Barry Setterfield's work regarding the decreasing speed of light at the fall years ago. Others have since built on it. Instead of a big bang and slowing speed, he has a creation, and then a parabolic decrease after the fall of Adam. 

So far it only seems to be a small group challenging Einstein. It would be good to see the broader scientific community join them even if their understanding is only partial.

If you haven't read Sungenis on geocentricity you might enjoy it. And Malcolm Bowden has some you tube geocentricity videos worth watching. Michelson- Morley, Sagnac, etc. The biblical model with a central earth in a firmament, and a truly fallen and cursed world including light speed, makes so much scientific sense.

Thanks for the post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2019)

In my decidedly unscientific trained opinion, I think Einstein’s theories will be thought of like Newton’s are now They work in many situations but not all.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 10, 2019)

Well Einstein's theories have been proven. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A little off topic but I heard today that we have the first picture of a black hole and it behaves exactly like Eistein said it would. Sometimes math can help us picture how things will behave.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Well Einstein's theories have been proven. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A little off topic but I heard today that we have the first picture of a black hole and it behaves exactly like Eistein said it would. Sometimes math can help us picture how things will behave.


Einstein’s (like Newton’s) theories have been proven except where and when they aren’t. As the article I posted said, Einstein’s gravitational theories may break down at some point and that some quantum theory of gravity may replace his.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Apr 10, 2019)

ZackF said:


> Einstein’s (like Newton’s) theories have been proven except where and when they aren’t. As the article I posted said, Einstein’s gravitational theories may break down at some point and that some quantum theory of gravity may replace his.


Oh yeah but fundamentally they are correct. Hawking made contributions that Einstein never guessed. A new theory is needed but I doubt it will overturn it, like the speed of light. But I am going to read that article.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 10, 2019)

It looks like VSL theories still have a lot of work to do before being viable. Most will prefer inflation due to not having to modify all of physical laws (and it solves a number of other problems), but the idea itself doesn't seem any more crazy than inflation, in my opinion (so long as restricted to the early universe). I think though the key lesson from VSL theories is that proposing it is "acceptable" in the secular world, whereas it is laughed off stage at once when creationists propose it to solve the exact same problem (a horizon problem).

I like John Hartnett's treatment of VSL here: https://creation.com/does-faster-speed-of-light-answer-big-bang-problems

It should be noted that the speed of light is only constant locally in GR; you can't define a speed globally (just like you can't define energy conservation globally): https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/133482/speed-of-light-in-general-relativity
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

One (in my opinion) promising candidate for quantum gravity is string theory, which apparently can accommodate a VSL theory in the early universe.

Enjoy nerding out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Apr 10, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Oh yeah but fundamentally they are correct. Hawking made contributions that Einstein never guessed. A new theory is needed but I doubt it will overturn it, like the speed of light. But I am going to read that article.



Again it’s not so much about ‘overturning’ it rather than qualifying it. For designing airbags Newton’s laws work just fine. He got us to the moon as the saying went. Things breakdown when extreme speeds and sizes are involved. Einstein does better then.

Here’s another article. https://bigthink.com/philip-perry/is-the-speed-of-light-slowing-down

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 13, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Well Einstein's theories have been proven. The speed of light is constant in a vacuum. A little off topic but I heard today that we have the first picture of a black hole and it behaves exactly like Eistein said it would. Sometimes math can help us picture how things will behave.



I've eagerly anticipated this for the last year.

https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpre...of-black-hole-national-science-foundation.jpg

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Apr 13, 2019)

Harley said:


> I've eagerly anticipated this for the last year.
> 
> https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpre...of-black-hole-national-science-foundation.jpg


Amazing what went to that and the amount of data crunched.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Interesting.
> 
> I myself read quite a bit on Barry Setterfield's work regarding the decreasing speed of light at the fall years ago. Others have since built on it. Instead of a big bang and slowing speed, he has a creation, and then a parabolic decrease after the fall of Adam.
> 
> ...



Why is Geocentrism important to you? 

For example, Jerusalem the most important city on earth Biblically speaking, but it is not located in the center of the earth. In fact, on earth how do you geographically determine a central focus?

Many things disprove Geocentrism and the easiest one of all is the perturbations of Mercury's orbit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Why is Geocentrism important to you?
> 
> For example, Jerusalem the most important city on earth Biblically speaking, but it is not located in the center of the earth. In fact, on earth how do you geographically determine a central focus?
> 
> Many things disprove Geocentrism and the easiest one of all is the perturbations of Mercury's orbit.


 I guess you missed the geocentrism threads here that went on for page after page until the mods ended them. 

Actually, many many things disprove Einstein's relativity and heliocentricity, and if you ever want to look further, the Mercury bit is no problem for geocentrists.

I'm pretty much done debating it here though. I'd rather leave it to the PhD astronomers and physicists who tackle it quite well. If you ever want to read more, look up Gerhardus Bouw and Robert Sungenis for starters. The latter has a marvelous DVD and book with the proofs that we (well, our solar system and galaxy) are at the center of the universe. 

Its a settled doctrine for me and I don't want to bang my head against the wall again here...and I'm not anywhere near as smart as the top geocentrists worth reading anyway. But thanks for the speed of light post. And spend some time thinking about why visible light speed always measures the same whether you move towards or away from a source, unlike the way we measure with radar waves and other waves. (It actually doesn't.) And the brilliance of Einstein was figuring out a way to explain all the experimental results that the earth is at rest, which voila, was his explanation that light waves don't behave like those other waves, it always measures the same, and time speeds up and down and so forth. ( Time Magazine, Man of the Century 2000). LOL, I am not making this up. Why is that so important to you is perhaps the better question. Light waves don't behave like other waves on the Electromagnetic spectrum such as radar, radio, etc? Time speeds up and slows down? Sounds like magic to me. 

Over and out.


----------



## Logan (Apr 17, 2019)

lynnie said:


> And spend some time thinking about why visible light speed always measures the same whether you move towards or away from a source, unlike the way we measure with radar waves and other waves. (It actually doesn't.)



We've been over this multiple times, but that's just incorrect. I am a radar engineer, specifically working in electromagnetics and I don't know what you're talking about.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 17, 2019)

EDIT: I answered my own question by more carefully reading the preceding post.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

lynnie said:


> I guess you missed the geocentrism threads here that went on for page after page until the mods ended them.
> 
> Actually, many many things disprove Einstein's relativity and heliocentricity, and if you ever want to look further, the Mercury bit is no problem for geocentrists.
> 
> ...



*??? Why are you thanking me for this Speed of Light thread? 

This is NOT my thread.*

Why are you addressing me about all those topics that someone else posted in this thread?

The only post I made in this thread prior to this one, was to you about Mercury's orbit.

*I am a brand new member here. 

So yes I had no clue that there had been any threads about Geocentricity. I was shocked when I read your post.*

You are the only Christian I have ever encountered personally who believes in Geocentricity.

Years ago I researched Sungenis and there was precious little real science in any of his presentations.

If you don't want to explain to me how the perturbations of Mercury's orbit don't disprove geocentricity then I will assume you can't because you don't understand the science well enough, especially when you explain that you don't understand the science very well.

*Why do you think everything must orbit the earth?*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

ZackF said:


> I have been doing more studies on creation the past few years and came across this article. I’m familiar with Jason Lisle’s “One Way Speed of Light” explanation for distant starlight but googling tonight I found this article. Thought I’d share.
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/motherboard.vice.com/amp/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed



Dear Zack,

I am convinced the Bible clearly teaches that God created the universe in a mature state, so I have never understood all of the fuss these many decades to try to find a way to change the speed of light when it simply isn't necessary, and they will never find it.

For example, God created Adam in a mature state. Were medical science able to examine Adam's body, then other than the possible absence of a belly button (LOL), the scientific findings would be identical to a human body grown from a fertilized egg.

So, using that same train of thought, could Science tell the difference between a Universe created in a mature state from an identical universe at that same state of maturity grown from a hot, dense, singularity (or from whatever the initial state was)? No!


----------



## ZackF (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Zack,
> 
> I am convinced the Bible clearly teaches that God created the universe in a mature state, so I have never understood all of the fuss these many decades to try to find a way to change the speed of light when it simply isn't necessary, and they will never find it.



I see.


----------



## ZackF (Apr 17, 2019)

There are those here that hold to Geocentrism here other than @lynnie. 

The PB has a lot of history, with many threads on numerous topics. You’ve started several threads in your short time here. You might find the archives helpful.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

ZackF said:


> There are those here that hold to Geocentrism here other than @lynnie.
> 
> The PB has a lot of history, with many threads on numerous topics. You’ve started several threads in your short time here. You might find the archives helpful.




Dear Zack,

I have been reading the Puritan Board for many, many years!!!

The PB has been one of my "go to" places to find help. 

I never felt the need to join until a few days ago when I had some questions I wanted to ask and some topics i wanted to discuss.

But no, not in a million years would I have thought to look for anything about Geocentrism in the PB.

Are you saying there are reformed who believe in Geocentrism? If so I am in shock.

Do you know how many early Astronomers including the father of Astrophysics were Presbyterians?!


----------



## ZackF (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Zack,
> 
> 
> Do you know how many early Astronomers including the father of Astrophysics were Presbyterians?!



Not a clue.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> *??? Why are you thanking me for this Speed of Light thread?
> 
> This is NOT my thread.*
> 
> ...


Dear John,
This is a moderating suggestion! We are just getting to know you (and are glad you’re here). Typically, posting in bold can come across to folks as a bit aggressive, and challenging the views so strongly of people you’re just getting to know comes across as a bit aggressive too. Please continue just as you are but perhaps with a wee toning down!


----------



## lynnie (Apr 17, 2019)

Logan said:


> We've been over this multiple times, but that's just incorrect. I am a radar engineer, specifically working in electromagnetics and I don't know what you're talking about.



Not sure what you mean. Radar operates according to classical physics. Object moves away from or towards you as you move, add and subtract velocities. Same for sound waves and other waves.

Relativity dispenses with that. Light speed appears the same even if you are moving. Experimental classical proof showed the earth at rest, moving to and from stars. Relativity was the way to get around that evidence and say we really were orbiting, even if there was no change in measured velocity.

The debate is more about relativity vs classical physics than anything else at this point.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 17, 2019)

Hey John, I was in a rush, sorry I made a mistake about you being the OP.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Dear John,
> This is a moderating suggestion! We are just getting to know you (and are glad you’re here). Typically, posting in bold can come across to folks as a bit aggressive, and challenging the views so strongly of people you’re just getting to know comes across as a bit aggressive too. Please continue just as you are but perhaps with a wee toning down!



Dear Jeri - Thank you for communicating with me. I have been told the same thing on Facebook in many different groups and I deactivated from Facebook.
I apologize that I am so intense. I left Facebook several months ago. I have been reading the PB for years but never felt the desire to join until a few days ago when there were some questions I wanted to ask and topics I wanted to discuss. But some of these topics stress me out so much, and maybe its my old age ... I honestly don't know ... but I tried to not be intense on Facebook and was unsuccessful. I think maybe it was a mistake to join PB because many of the topics trigger to many emotions and bad memories. Maybe I should return to just being a reader of PB. 
Again, thank you for your communication. Lord's blessings to you.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 17, 2019)

By the way, Martin Selbrede of the Chalcedon report is a devout geocentrist who has put out some good stuff in the past. Of course anybody into Rushdooney may not be considered truly Reformed here


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Apr 17, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Jeri - Thank you for communicating with me. I have been told the same thing on Facebook in many different groups and I deactivated from Facebook.
> I apologize that I am so intense. I left Facebook several months ago. I have been reading the PB for years but never felt the desire to join until a few days ago when there were some questions I wanted to ask and topics I wanted to discuss. But some of these topics stress me out so much, and maybe its my old age ... I honestly don't know ... but I tried to not be intense on Facebook and was unsuccessful. I think maybe it was a mistake to join PB because many of the topics trigger to many emotions and bad memories. Maybe I should return to just being a reader of PB.
> Again, thank you for your communication. Lord's blessings to you.


No, don’t leave! You have great things to say and best of all you love the Lord so much, it’s plain to see. Look at all the interaction you’ve gotten. You need to be here.


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 17, 2019)

Jeri Tanner said:


> No, don’t leave! You have great things to say and best of all you love the Lord so much, it’s plain to see. Look at all the interaction you’ve gotten. You need to be here.



Dear Jeri - you are encouraging and kind, but I keep being told the same thing in one reformed Facebook group after another from "men of God' who were usualy in leadership positions in their Churches, and they were good men ... and then you say the same.
I don't know how to explain it but in recent years I have been having more and more memory problems .. and seem less and less in control of my emotions.
And I get very intense, but I always had a strong personality, especially in the military when it was an asset.
I sincerely love everyone but certain kinds of bad theology makes me get a bit unhinged ...
I don't know.
I am going to meditate upon this, pray, and see where God leads.

Thanks again for communicating with me.


----------



## CJW (Apr 18, 2019)

Deuteronomy2929 said:


> But no, not in a million years would I have thought to look for anything about Geocentrism in the PB.
> 
> Are you saying there are reformed who believe in Geocentrism? If so I am in shock.



Haha, yes, it isn't a subject one would just randomly search for, but, yes, there is more than one reformed person who believes in Geocentrism. . I hope you were sitting down!! 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Deuteronomy2929 (Apr 18, 2019)

CJW said:


> Haha, yes, it isn't a subject one would just randomly search for, but, yes, there is more than one reformed person who believes in Geocentrism. . I hope you were sitting down!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



Dear CJW,

I am sorry, but I don't think this is amusing. 

I did read some PB Threads about Geocentrism after this ordeal earlier today.

Then I contacted NASA. 

Hopefully in about 2 weeks, I will have in 2 forms absolute incontrovertible proof that Heliocentrism is true, and Geocentrism is delusional.

#1 Solar probe proof) Time stamped compiled series of photographs and data showing the planets orbiting around the solar probe in close proximity to the Sun, which means orbiting around the sun.

#2 Planetary probes) Time stamped series of photographs from Mars showing the Sun Rising and Setting EXACTLY LIKE IT DOES ON EARTH, and Mars even rotates in the same direction as earth thus making it also East to West.

Is the sun orbiting around Mars too? Because the behavior of the Sun, as a Geocentrist would describe it, is IDENTICAL to how a Geocentrist views the supposed Sun's behavior on Earth.

BUT - I have also learned that many Geocentrists have CONSPIRACY THEORIES about NASA and other scientific endeavors so it might be a complete waste of my time.

When I receive the data I will give it to the PB administrators and let them decide what to do with it.

You see, I am leaving the Puritan Board because I just can't handle this kind of stuff anymore.

I am too old and ill for this. I realize this now.

In Christ, john


----------



## CJW (Apr 18, 2019)

My sincere apologies, dear Brother, I didn't mean to offend. Please forgive me.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Logan (Apr 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Not sure what you mean. Radar operates according to classical physics. Object moves away from or towards you as you move, add and subtract velocities. Same for sound waves and other waves.



I think you're confused between velocity of the wave and the Doppler (frequency) shift, which are not the same. Heliocentric or geocentric, what you are stating is just incorrect. If it were, every radar measurement we make would be completely ambiguous and nearly useless. What sources are you finding that state radar works this way?

There are some special properties of electromagnetic waves once you get to wavelengths near the atomic scale, but I'm curious to know where you think this switch between "classical physics" and "relativistic physics" happens in that spectrum.

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/another-article-against-geocentrism.90800/page-9#post-1115435

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929 said:


> Dear Jeri - Thank you for communicating with me. I have been told the same thing on Facebook in many different groups and I deactivated from Facebook.
> I apologize that I am so intense. I left Facebook several months ago. I have been reading the PB for years but never felt the desire to join until a few days ago when there were some questions I wanted to ask and topics I wanted to discuss. But some of these topics stress me out so much, and maybe its my old age ... I honestly don't know ... but I tried to not be intense on Facebook and was unsuccessful. I think maybe it was a mistake to join PB because many of the topics trigger to many emotions and bad memories. Maybe I should return to just being a reader of PB.
> Again, thank you for your communication. Lord's blessings to you.



Old people talk louder online I've noticed. And they like exclammation points and CAPITALS more. Old people and Fundamentalists. I think it is a generational thing. Them soft Millenials just can't take it.

I hope you keep interacting. 

As you get used to the PB you'll shout less and resort more to passive-aggressive smug smart-alecky-ness like the rest of us, putting subtle jabs like small doses of poison into your responses to kill your opponent gradually.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> As you get used to the PB you'll shout less and resort more to passive-aggressive smug smart-alecky-ness like the rest of us,


We all have learned well from the master.........YOU


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> We all have learned well from the master.........YOU


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


>


Right are you.

In fact some can often reflect the Bible’s account of being a talking ass (Numbers 22).


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 18, 2019)

SelfSuspendedDeuteronomy2929 said:


> #1 Solar probe proof) Time stamped compiled series of photographs and data showing the planets orbiting around the solar probe in close proximity to the Sun, which means orbiting around the sun.
> 
> #2 Planetary probes) Time stamped series of photographs from Mars showing the Sun Rising and Setting EXACTLY LIKE IT DOES ON EARTH, and Mars even rotates in the same direction as earth thus making it also East to West.


The geocentrists that deny relativity have the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth. Neither of these will disprove absolute geocentrism. These days, it is not about the data per se but about dynamics and metaphysics. (Although to be fair, Tycho Brahe's system has been around for a while, and it is just the coordinate transform one would get by changing to earth's frame; if a geocentrist model is consistent with relativity, then the model will definitely be consistent with both of the above data sets.)


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Right are you.
> 
> In fact some can often reflect the Bible’s account of being a talking ass (Numbers 22).


Oh, but that donkey didn't lie. He told the truth. So there's that going for him.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

Afterthought said:


> The geocentrists that deny relativity have the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbiting the earth. Neither of these will disprove absolute geocentrism. These days, it is not about the data per se but about dynamics and metaphysics. (Although to be fair, Tycho Brahe's system has been around for a while, and it is just the coordinate transform one would get by changing to earth's frame; if a geocentrist model is consistent with relativity, then the model will definitely be consistent with both of the above data sets.)


Can we say that some truths are metaphysically true even when they are not literally true? Such as Christ's crucifixion being the "center" of world history even though there doesn't have to literally be equal time before as after? 

And in the same manner, the earth is the center of God's focus, even though not literally the center of the universe?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 18, 2019)

Logan-

I can't remember which sources. Just for my own clarification, can you tell me something.....

If I am on a moving train, and a person with a bright flashlight is standing on the track, relativity says the speed of the light will measure the same heading towards or away from them. However, if the person is an ambulance signal and they move towards me and then away from me, the soundwave will measure higher or lower ( we hear the pitch change) from velocities adding and subtracting. 

Are you saying radar radio waves do not measure like sound waves? The velocity will always measure the same no matter which direction you move towards or away from a moving object? It doesn't matter for geocentricity but it is an example out there so I want to clarify. Thanks.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 18, 2019)

John- here is a nice a little quote from a heliocentrist:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-possible-to-construct-a-modern-geocentric-model

As mentioned above, the modern model has all the planets orbiting the sun, and the sun orbits center of mass of the universe. Your mercury is going around the sun, so please don't go to all kinds of trouble to get pictures of the inner planets. 

Both models work fine with regard to our solar system and what we observe, you will find that out if you read more. Geo is considered egocentric and repulsive. We call it redemption and earth centered glorious, but I'll stop there. 





Gregory Snelgar, Physicist
Answered Aug 31, 2016
A geocentric model would also be an ego-centric model. It would require you to believe that the whole universe revolves around you.

But mathematically it would actually be simpler and more elegant. Perhaps you are thinking of the Ptolemaic system which required complex and inelegant "deferents" and "epicycles".

If we take the neo-Tychonic model, it is actually simpler and more elegant than the current standard model. The other planets orbit the Sun as per modern observations, but the Sun orbits the center of mass of the universe, which is the Earth.

This is observationally identical to the standard model but philosophically unwelcome.

Mathematically it is more elegant because it does away with cosmic inflation, the Lorentz contraction, etc. which were designed with the specific goal of avoiding an egocentric model.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

One question I have: if the red shift results from the universe expanding all around us, and if this red shift is seen 360 degrees around our planet, doesn't this indicate that we are at the center? If there is a red-shift found in every quadrant of the sky, this means we are in the middle.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> One question I have: if the red shift results from the universe expanding all around us, and if this red shift is seen 360 degrees around our planet, doesn't this indicate that we are at the center? If there is a red-shift found in every quadrant of the sky, this means we are in the middle.



A modern cosmologist would tell you that everything is moving away from everything else, so everything looks red shifted from everywhere.

Image you have a small balloon (the surface of the balloon is space) and on that balloon a lot of dots are drawn. Each dot is a star / galaxy / planet / whatever. Now blow up the balloon. Each dot moves away from every other dot as the surface of the balloon inflates. Modern cosmologists would tell us that this is the same phenomenon that the universe at large experiences. So, from that point of view, "center" is meaningless on the one hand, and on the other hand EVERYTHING is at the "center" from its own point of view.


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 18, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> A modern cosmologist would tell you that everything is moving away from everything else, so everything looks red shifted from everywhere.
> 
> Image you have a small balloon (the surface of the balloon is space) and on that balloon a lot of dots are drawn. Each dot is a star / galaxy / planet / whatever. Now blow up the balloon. Each dot moves away from every other dot as the surface of the balloon inflates. Modern cosmologists would tell us that this is the same phenomenon that the universe at large experiences. So, from that point of view, "center" is meaningless on the one hand, and on the other hand EVERYTHING is at the "center" from its own point of view.


That also makes sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Logan-
> 
> I can't remember which sources. Just for my own clarification, can you tell me something.....
> 
> ...



Logan is perfectly equipped to answer, but I am here, and I have a solid background in radar as well as laser interferometers.

The short answer is that radar works exactly the same as light.

Shine a flashlight (or radiate a radar signal) at my face. I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be 182,282 miles per second, and it will have a certain wavelength and frequency.

Now walk toward me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be shorter and the frequency will be higher.

Now walk away from me. Or even run! But keep shining that flashlight (or radiating that radar). Now, I will measure the speed of the incoming wave to be exactly the same as before. Zero difference. But the wavelength of the incoming wave will be longer and the frequency will be lower.

Doppler Radar works by measuring the shift in wavelength / frequency of the reflected wave as it bounces off of a moving object. The speed of the wave is not changed, the wavelength / frequency changes.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 18, 2019)

The geocentrics and lunocentrics are all in good company. After all, who doesn't want to be like Sherlock Holmes??

From "A Study in Scarlet":



> That any civilized human being in this nineteenth century should not be aware that the earth travelled round the sun appeared to be to me such an extraordinary fact that I could hardly realize it.
> 
> “You appear to be astonished,” he said, smiling at my expression of surprise. “Now that I do know it I shall do my best to forget it.”
> 
> ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Apr 18, 2019)

Ok, anything wrong I say don't blame it on the leading geocentrists. LOL. There are all kinds of threads and sites out there and people draw conclusions and make statements that might be wrong. The internet is a mixture. I appreciate the clarification. I won't mention radar again if I talk to somebody. Just don't pin this on Bouw or Sungenis or Selbrede or Bowden. 

To try and explain better- and here I am referring to the Time Magazine man of the Century article about Einstein which I linked in some other thread here- all the experimental work in the 1800s that assumed the earth hurling towards a distant star at one point, and six months later hurling away from that star in the opposite direction as the earth supposedly orbits the sun, expected to see a measurable difference in the light coming from the star, by adding and subtracting the velocity of the earth's orbit. But it didn't. It showed the earth at rest.

That liberal rag itself Time Mag wrote how this puzzled scientists for a couple decades. And they call the genius of Einstein that he figured out relativity, that the light from the star does not behave like you would expect a wave to behave. You can't add and subtract velocities of the moving earth, so really the earth is moving even if it measures as a body at rest, so they say . Classical physics got tossed for relativity. Geocentrists reject relativity.

There are links on the other threads for anybody interested to read more but I don't have time to go looking. But thanks for the reply. This isn't some flat earth internet group, this is brilliant scientist geocentrists, and I am not one of them, but they are worth investigating for anyone interested.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Apr 18, 2019)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Logan is perfectly equipped to answer, but I am here, and I have a solid background in radar as well as laser interferometers.
> 
> The short answer is that radar works exactly the same as light.
> 
> ...



So amazing... who can understand it? 

Like all things from God we can understand to a point before it explodes into mystery.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Apr 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> To try and explain better- and here I am referring to the Time Magazine man of the Century article about Einstein which I linked in some other thread here- all the experimental work in the 1800s that assumed the earth hurling towards a distant star at one point, and six months later hurling away from that star in the opposite direction as the earth supposedly orbits the sun, expected to see a measurable difference in the light coming from the star, by adding and subtracting the velocity of the earth's orbit. But it didn't. It showed the earth at rest.



Instruments in the 1800s weren't sensitive enough to notice. The truth we have _definitely _observed a difference in the light from distant starts as the Earth moves toward or away from any given star as the Earth goes around the Sun.

For example, a distant star will appear slightly more blue (shorter wavelength) as the Earth is moving (relatively) toward a star for several months and the same star will appear slightly more red (longer wavelength) as the Earth is moving (relatively) away from the same star for several months. It takes really sensitive instruments to detect this, but the phenomenon is present, periodic, and repeatable, and exactly matches the "Earth goes around the Sun" model.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan (Apr 18, 2019)

lynnie said:


> Classical physics got tossed for relativity. Geocentrists reject relativity.



I'm not entirely certain why "classical physics" seems to be considered almost sacred. Our models of our understanding of creation are getting better and better. Sir Isaac Newton contributed greatly to modern physics but some of the stuff he postulated in a large part overturned _previous_ "classical physics". And all for the better. But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates "classical physics" is God-centered and anything else is not.

And if you start to get into anything like quantum, lasers, semi-conductors, you start to realize there are a whole lot of things that just simply can't be explained by "classical physics". And then you start to realize just how little we really know and how inscrutable the Creator really is.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Afterthought (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Can we say that some truths are metaphysically true even when they are not literally true? Such as Christ's crucifixion being the "center" of world history even though there doesn't have to literally be equal time before as after?
> 
> And in the same manner, the earth is the center of God's focus, even though not literally the center of the universe?


By "metaphysics," I was referring to the essence of things, what reality actually is, the thing behind the appearances. Physics describes how things function, but it cannot tell us what they are. Even its descriptions of motion are relative to a prior understanding of reality (e.g., in terms of reference frames) and so cannot be held as absolute. Modern relativity theory gets around this to a degree because its definition of "space" and "time" are operationalist, i.e., it tries to avoid metaphysics and just stick with what we can measure. The question of geocentrism is tied up with questions of absolute motion and absolute location, and so it is tied up with metaphysical questions. Some metaphysical questions do get mixed up with the theological though, I suppose, e.g., I could say that the earth centered frame is the absolute frame of reference for theological reasons, even though any frame centered around anything will give the correct physical results; it's a question of metaphysics and theology.

However, to answer the questions, yes, I agree that such can be the case. I think there are three things to keep in mind though.

1) Sometimes, the theological significance is tied to the existence of the literal, e.g., typology. Or the literal significance will be so significant that it will give rise to the theological significance, e.g., if the earth was found to be in a special place physically, that would call for a theological explanation (at least at first; probably some false theology like evolutionary development plus searching for a new symmetry would replace it eventually).

2) Sometimes, the question is not merely theological significance, but literal significance. The person who views the Bible as teaching geocentrism is concerned with literal, factual placement/motion of the earth, not merely theological.

3) The theological significance can affect metaphysical issues that affect our formulation of physics and thereby influence how we view the world, and it is possible that the theological significance can be denied by how one approaches the literal significance in formulating physical theories. MW in the thread Logan linked to earlier mentioned how the "mediocrity principle" was a motivating factor in developing modern cosmology. While today it is used more as a simplifying device by the everyday research physicist (with a little supporting evidence too), a Christian who viewed the earth as being theologically significant would not have been driven by the same motivations and may have formulated physics differently (or maybe not; the motivation for the "mediocrity principle" may have come from another source for the Christian). Certainly, such a Christian could not rule out certain explanations merely because they made the earth seem physically special.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 18, 2019)

Sean- thank you for the reply! I truly appreciate it.

The problem is that years ago I spent so much time on this, and corresponded with Malcolm Bowden in the UK and wrote to Selbrede once ( his answer was way over my head). And while you can say that modern measurements are better and prove one thing, the geo scientists will not agree. I read it all at the time....what about the Foucault pendulum, what about the airplane that flew with an atomic clock, what about this what about that. It was all out there...Lambert Dolphin's library had a lot If I recall correctly, Sungenis has a site as does Bowden, I bought Bouws book and the Sungenis book and DVD. I read it all and it settled it for me. And at this point I don't want to go hunt for things anymore just to post on PB. Been there. But I mean it when I say I appreciate the dialogue.

I hope this analogy does not offend, but for me it is like trying to talk to a biologos person who is my saved brethren in Christ. They have all the modern proof that the earth is billions of years old and mankind conclusively evolved from an original group of at least 80 people with distinct DNA. And they Carbon dated Noah's bible and it was positively from 80,000 years ago in a local flood, well not exactly a quote but you get my drift. 

Both helio and geo work to explain the solar system that we see. You cannot disprove either in that sense. Going broader to the universe, here is a set of lovely quotes:

https://quotesandreferences.blogspot.com/2016/08/quotes-in-favor-of-geocentrism.html 

I'm tempted to post it all, but too long I think. A few below, but I hope you can read the link. Ultimately, it is philosophical, and modern science rejects geocentricity on philosophical grounds. There are other sites with way more quotes but I just don't want to put the time into this. Better people read the scientists instead of me screwing up something, LOL. Thanks again. 

"I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, *and you cannot disprove it based on observations*. *You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds*. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that *we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that*."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis 

"What happened when the experiment was done in 1887? *There was never, never, in any orientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; no fringe shift; nothing. What's the implication? Here was an experiment that was done to measure the speed of the earth's motion through the ether. This was an experiment that was ten times more sensitive than it needed to be. It could have detected speeds as low as two miles a second instead of the known 2mps that the earth as in its orbital motion around the sun. It didn't detect it. *What's the conclusion from the Michelson-Morley experiment? The implications is that the earth is not moving..."- Physicist, Richard Wolfson

"*The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.*"- Astrophysicist, Yetendra P. Varshni

"*No longer could astronomers hope that the Copernican dilemma would disappear with improved data. The data were in hand, and their implication inescapable: we are at the center of a spherically symmetric distribution of gamma-ray-burst sources, and this distribution has an outer edge."- Astrophysicist, Jonathan I. Katz*


----------



## ZackF (Apr 18, 2019)

This thread was to be about C or VSL. For geo/helio matters, I suggest another thread.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 18, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> As you get used to the PB you'll shout less and resort more to passive-aggressive smug smart-alecky-ness like the rest of us, putting subtle jabs like small doses of poison into your responses to kill your opponent gradually.






Grant Jones said:


> We all have learned well from the master.........YOU



Hilarious. My first thought when I saw Perg's post was, "well, perfect spot for Grant to chime in". That was beautiful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

