# Galileo Was Wrong: The Church Was Right



## SolaGratia

Galileo Was Wrong

Excerpt from link above: 

Galileo Was Wrong is a detailed and comprehensive treatment of the scientific evidence supporting Geocentrism, the academic belief that the Earth is immobile in the center of the universe. Garnering scientific information from physics, astrophysics, astronomy and other sciences, Galileo Was Wrong shows that the debate between Galileo and the Catholic Church was much more than a difference of opinion about the interpretation of Scripture.

Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.


----------



## JennyG

> Scientific evidence available to us within the last 100 years that was not available during Galileo's confrontation shows that the Church's position on the immobility of the Earth is not only scientifically supportable, but it is the most stable model of the universe and the one which best answers all the evidence we see in the cosmos.


I don't feel too comfortable agreeing with "the church".... but more to the point it also fits very well with what scripture says


----------



## Philip

Where does Scripture say unequivocally (ie: in non-poetic propositional terms) that the earth is the center?

Yes, Galileo's findings were inaccurate and the church was right to reject them. However, given later evidence, Galileo has been shown to be right by sheer accident.


----------



## JennyG

> Where does Scripture say unequivocally (ie: in non-poetic propositional terms) that the earth is the center?


Find the answer (and much, much more) here


----------



## ericfromcowtown




----------



## JennyG




----------



## SolaGratia

From the link above:

Following the rule of St. Augustine, the Catholic Church teaches that we are to interpret the Sacred Scriptures in their literal and obvious sense unless the interpretation is untenable or necessity requires otherwise. The Church also dogmatically teaches that it is not permissible to depart from the early Church Fathers’ interpretation of Scripture when they are unanimous (Councils of Trent and Vatican I). What does this have to do with cosmology? Everything, because in interpreting the plain meaning of Scripture, all of the Church Fathers believed in geocentrism (that the Earth is a motionless body in the center of the universe). Moreover, this view was endorsed by three popes in authoritative decrees which condemned Copernicanism as “heretical” and “opposed to Scripture.” 
From Quasars to Gamma-Ray Bursts, from Parallax to Red Shifts, and from Michelson-Morley to Sagnac, Drs. Sungenis and Bennett’s book Galileo Was Wrong meticulously applies the scientific mortar to the theological bricks of geocentrism, producing a compelling structure that brings Catholic teaching and modern science to a crossroads. If the Earth is really the center of the universe, then modern man must face his biggest fear – that there is a Creator who put it there, and man is subject to His rule and authority. This results in two more “frightening” consequences: Copernicanism (which was abandoned by Galileo before he died) is one of the biggest deceptions ever perpetrated upon mankind; and, modern man must retool his entire worldview by giving his primary allegiance, not to science, but to the Church, “the pinnacle and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

John Salza, Esquire
Author: Masonry Unmasked


----------



## ChristianTrader

P. F. Pugh said:


> Where does Scripture say unequivocally (ie: in non-poetic propositional terms) that the earth is the center?
> 
> Yes, Galileo's findings were inaccurate and the church was right to reject them. However, given later evidence, Galileo has been shown to be right by sheer accident.


 
Unequivocally, according to whom? If one looks at the history of interpretation, people did not find various passages equivocal on the subject.

CT


----------



## Philip

Jenny, I can't find the argument from Scripture there. Possible phenomenological language in the one instance debated does not a case for geocentrism make.


----------



## JennyG

> Jenny, I can't find the argument from Scripture there. Possible phenomenological language in the one instance debated does not a case for geocentrism make.


Philip, it was a very long thread, but I know the scriptural evidence and its interpretation (Joshua's long day for eg) was gone into at considerable length, especially by Armourbearer.
The discussion raged all night long while I was in the land of nod, which is exactly where I'm about to head now! 
Why will these threads take off just at British bedtime??


----------



## Philip

JennyG said:


> Philip, it was a very long thread, but I know the scriptural evidence and its interpretation (Joshua's long day for eg) was gone into at considerable length, especially by Armourbearer.
> The discussion raged all night long while I was in the land of nod, which is exactly where I'm about to head now!
> Why will these threads take off just at British bedtime??


 
I read it. I was unconvinced. My question is how to square the masses of empirical evidence that support a non-geocentric position (stellar parallax, Post-Newtonian physics, nuclear physics, etc) are to be squared with the Scriptures. My answer is that in this case, the event is being described as it was seen by an observer. Is that really stretching the interpretation of Scripture so far? What happens when general revelation and special revelation appear to conflict? It means that our interpretation of one or the other is in need of revision.

And yes


----------



## lynnie

OOOH, my all time favorite debate 

Fact is- fact, you will find it in any secular high school text book, that both models work equally well to predict everything they predict ( retrograde motion, eclipses, etc). 

So the real debate is "Post-Newtonian physics" as Phillip points out.

Michaelson- Morley and those who redid their experiments showed that as the earth supposedly hurled towards a star, and then away from it 6 months later, instead of the speed of light showing as "c" plus or minus the velocity of the earth ( think of soundwaves from an ambulance sounding higher or lower as it speeds to you and then from you, because the speed of the ambulance is added or subtracted to the velocity of the soundwave ) ......the speed of light stays constant.

So either Einstein is correct and light speed will appear to look the same even if you are on a fast moving planet towards or away from a star, or Einstein is wrong and classical physics shows the earth is stationary ( well, almost, some geocentrists believe in some rotation that started up when a comet/asteroid hit back around Noah, If I recall correctly).

There are too many geocentric PhD astronomers and physicists who have come out with scientific responses to all the standard rebuttals ( focault pendulum, stellar parallax, etc) that you can't just throw this out the window anymore, it is much like the ID movement. Look at just the list at the link.

Again, unless we can go outside the solar system and look, both models work. So you really have to decide if you accept Einstein's theory of relativity or not. Plenty of real smart guys, smarter than us, do not.

Gil...whew...I would so like to go to that. They gotta have another one in heaven for sure after we get there!!!!!!!


----------



## toddpedlar

I shouldn't even begin to enter this discussion, because those who are convinced that geocentrism is correct will continue to maintain it regardless of the fact that their evidence is cherry picked, legitimate counter-evidence ignored, and the same old canards continue to be offered to prop up the idea. Lynnie put the primary evidence out there - namely that if Einstein is correct, then geocentrism is not.

Well, Einstein's relativity IS correct and is justified/established by far, far, far more than Michelson-Morley. Other things that are claimed (retrograde motion of planets being explained, for one sore-thumb example) are quite simply NOT true. Retrograde motion of the planets requires a ridiculous arrangement of cycles, epicycles, epiepicycles, and epiepiepiepicycles to explain what we see among the planets. Other planetary systems have been discovered that obey the Newtonian laws of gravitation - the satellites of the solar system's planets also obey Newton's law of gravitation - are somehow they supposed to follow one set of laws that are very, very well established, but the Earth, with supposedly the whole universe rotating around it supposed to follow an arcane, byzantine set of ridiculous rules, with planets not actually orbiting about the earth, but about some other point in space, which point also orbits about another point in space, etc.? All this with out any real physical explanation? 

Geocentrism is simply unsupportable, and completely unnecessary from a textual-exegetical standpoint. It is no more supportable as "science" from the supposed evidence than Darwinian evolution is, to pick a particular example. In fact, it is LESS supportable than Darwin. (and Darwin is junk science, too).

I've posted similar things before - and will not bother to enter into protracted debate. Einstein's special relativity is SO well established from everything that I do as a physicist, so far beyond any supposed "detractions" that crackpots come up with, that there is no reason to doubt it based on a mistakenly wooden reading of a few verses in Scripture. The Earth is stationary in just as real a sense as the sense in which it has four corners, and as the sense in which Christ is a rectangular piece of carved wood that hangs on hinges and opens and shuts.


----------



## SRoper

The statement that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that either the ether doesn't exist or Cleveland is the center of the universe is supposed to be a joke, not a line of serious argumentation.


----------



## Zenas

Both are wrong. The universe revolves around the moon.

---------- Post added at 09:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 PM ----------

Oh yeah, Robert Sungenis is insane. Ever see him attempt to debate James White?


----------



## TimV

Only conspiracy theorists believe in geocentricity. Get with it, everyone. The Tychonian system doesn't work for anyone how can do basic math. As in basic multiplication.

If the stars rotate around the earth, they're going up to millions of times the speed of light.

The fact that someone set up a geocentrism institute in front of their computer doesn't give the fringe theory any credibility.


----------



## Bern

I am divided on this issue, and have discussed it at length with a guy from my church, whom lynnie is familar with. However I think its right to say that in general only conspiracy theorists believe this stuff, and he definately is one, and has various views on the moon landings and other things, not all of which I agree with him on. The main point to keep in mind is this: from the perspective of of Gods dealing with mankind, the earth IS central to everything. Whether it is physically central in space is not as relevant. Although there are arguments that the theory of relativity has caused the "everything is relative" attitude. Don't ask me to qualify that statement! lol


----------



## Ivan

Did the full moon have any influence on this thread?


----------



## Bern

hehehe


----------



## lynnie

todd...for what it is worth...

the geo model has the earth at the center and all the other planets go around the sun, which goes around the earth.

Not sure what ancient model you are referring to, but it isn't the modern geo one, which does work fine and easily.

However, as we both know, it is Einstein versus Newton anyway.

I ordered the synopsis book so I'll see how it goes.

So Tim, the one who made the stars can't twirl them quicker than you think he can?


----------



## TimV

Lynnie that's not a real argument! You are positing that a continuous miracle occurs a certain distance above us. You can't have it both ways. Either the Tychonic model works according to accepted laws of physics or it doesn't. You can't say "It works up until you get to Mars but by the time you get to Jupiter the laws of physics don't apply anymore since God resurrected Lazarus".


----------



## Zenas

Lynnie,

It's not that He can't, it's that He doesn't. It's quite clear that God, who has generally revealed Himself in Creation, has set things in motion and maintains them according to certain constants and rules that He wrote which are observable. You're wagging the dog with the tail by stating that He can and therefore He does. Quite the opposite. Although He can, He doesn't, and has deemed things function in a different manner.


----------



## lynnie

Huh? The geo model is that the universe orbits the earth every 24 hours, it is not some miracle against the laws of physics, it is a rotational model. If you look at the link they are all PhD physics guys at the conference, not conspiracy housewives. 


The speed of light is a limit for a straight line supposedly, but not for rotation.

Zenas, yeah, there are rules. Like when something is a wave traveling at a certain speed, and you put it on a moving vehicle, you add or subtract velocities to get the speed of the wave. This was called the rules and constraints of Physics until Einstein came up with relativity, which plenty of physicists at the time and also some now reject, being as it is against all those rules you are referring to. If you want to accept Einstein, don't talk to me about rules, the stars orbiting is not more whacky than relativity is. A lot less actually.


----------



## Zenas

What's wacky about relativity? 

Also, what's not whacky about a star located several thousands light years away (Meaning it takes thousands of years for light to travel from there to here), orbiting the Earth every 24 hours. As Tim has pointed out, that would require those stars to orbit at a rate fast than Warp 10 on Star Trek. Keep in mind, the Earth is stationary so it's the baseline. 

1. What evidence is there that objects can travel that fast? A supposed lack of evidence on the part of my position isn't proof of yours. It has to stand on its own. 

2. Where does Scripture dictate that that's the case? 

3. Where are the four corners of the Earth?

---------- Post added at 12:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:33 PM ----------




lynnie said:


> If you look at the link they are all PhD physics guys at the conference, not conspiracy housewives.



That's an appeal to authority. I've seen plenty of people with law degrees who are terrible attorneys that are routinely wrong.


----------



## he beholds

So, I had NO IDEA that this was still debatable! I admit to knowing nada--just dropping in to show my surprise. 
(I know, this _helpful_ post will soon be in the runnings for being found helpful by the most amount of users.)


----------



## JennyG

> _[Originally Posted by lynnie:]
> If you look at the link they are all PhD physics guys at the conference, not conspiracy housewives._
> That's an appeal to authority.


is that a problem? Unless we ourselves are the possessors of all knowledge, most of our arguments are doomed to be ultimately appeals to authority.


----------



## lynnie

Zenas- far as I know some of them, maybe not all or even the majority ( I did most of my reading a dozen years ago) believe in the decay of the speed of light after the fall theory, first proposed by Barry Setterfield who was not a geocentrist back them. Bottom line of the theory is light was way faster 6000 years ago and the stars are not as far as they look but much closer. Not sure of the speed of rotation. And yeah, they have it all figured out with e=mc2 and cells and increased energy and all that jazz. And it is based on 22 measurements the past 400 years, not conjecture.

Where is heaven? Where is Jesus in his body right now? Inside the universe or outside? When an angel comes to bring a message can it travel faster than the distance from the farthest galaxy, like billions of light years? Or is heaven not too far, like Mars or Venus? Heaven is only as far as science says we can travel? So an angel can only go the speed of light from something? Pluto is 5 hours away light speed, so where is heaven? Past pluto?

I think the modern man centered limits on Almighty God master of the universe and creator of all are showing up here.

There is nothing you can throw at me these astronomers and physicists haven't detailed in the books. Its like somebody throwing me a few verses with the word "all" in them and expecting me to renounce particular atonement. Sorry but I read Arthur Pink and it won't happen. Likewise with this subject, I don't have time to go reread all the discussions on the theory of relativity and why we should accept the Michaelson Morley type stuff that shows the earth at the center, and then distill a thousand pages down for you. But when I read it, the Newton seemed obvious and the Einstein false. Just my opinion and Todd will disagree.

Who says what the limits of speed are. With quantum mechanics there are particles that are far apart seemingly interacting instantly.

Geocentricity is interesting in that the science presumes a firmament ( very dense, in which planets and stars move, like a scuba diver in water) as opposed to empty space...it actually explains a lot of things current modern theory can not explain. 

Geocentrists also believe the sun, moon, and stars were created on day 4....really really really day four. Not day 1 and the light was visible by day 4. But created on 4. That has all kinds of implications but I am short on time right now.


----------



## Zenas

The general gist of it is that because God can do certain things, he does, and that means your argument is sound. I'm bowing out of this now.

Addendum: If we're going to battle it out with appeals to doctorates, check out Todd Peddlar's CV. I seem to trust he has a grasp on physics.


----------



## Philip

> Where is heaven? Where is Jesus in his body right now? Inside the universe or outside? When an angel comes to bring a message can it travel faster than the distance from the farthest galaxy, like billions of light years? Or is heaven not too far, like Mars or Venus? Heaven is only as far as science says we can travel? So an angel can only go the speed of light from something? Pluto is 5 hours away light speed, so where is heaven? Past pluto?



These questions display an ignorance of basic metaphysics. Jesus in His body is currently outside the space-time continuum.


----------



## CharlieJ

> Geocentricity is interesting in that the science presumes a firmament ( very dense, in which planets and stars move, like a scuba diver in water) as opposed to empty space...it actually explains a lot of things current modern theory can not explain.



Wouldn't this mean that we could bottle space and put it in a jar? Serious question.


----------



## lynnie

P. F. Pugh said:


> Where is heaven? Where is Jesus in his body right now? Inside the universe or outside? When an angel comes to bring a message can it travel faster than the distance from the farthest galaxy, like billions of light years? Or is heaven not too far, like Mars or Venus? Heaven is only as far as science says we can travel? So an angel can only go the speed of light from something? Pluto is 5 hours away light speed, so where is heaven? Past pluto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These questions display an ignorance of basic metaphysics. Jesus in His body is currently outside the space-time continuum.
Click to expand...


Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section


----------



## Philip

lynnie said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is heaven? Where is Jesus in his body right now? Inside the universe or outside? When an angel comes to bring a message can it travel faster than the distance from the farthest galaxy, like billions of light years? Or is heaven not too far, like Mars or Venus? Heaven is only as far as science says we can travel? So an angel can only go the speed of light from something? Pluto is 5 hours away light speed, so where is heaven? Past pluto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These questions display an ignorance of basic metaphysics. Jesus in His body is currently outside the space-time continuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
Click to expand...

 
Where exactly does the Bible indicate this?


----------



## Spinningplates2

YOu all know that Armourbearer ( and his proof from scripture) is the one who won this arguement last time.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Spinningplates2 said:


> YOu all know that Armourbearer ( and his proof from scripture) is the one who won this arguement last time.


Link?

AMR


----------



## jwithnell

Um, does it help to consider that the church based its views almost entirely on Aristotle?


----------



## JennyG

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu all know that Armourbearer ( and his proof from scripture) is the one who won this arguement last time.
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> AMR
Click to expand...

 
here


----------



## py3ak

It should be noted that Armourbearer did not argue against heliocentrism as a model for scientific inquiry.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post709965

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index2.html#post710049

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/index3.html#post710345

What the thread did demonstrate in great detail and once and again is that Joshua 10 is inappropriately handled when considerations from outside the text are allowed to overthrow the straightforward statements of the text.


----------



## steadfast7

I believe it was Galileo who said, "The Bible tells you how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."


----------



## Philip

> It should be noted that Armourbearer did not argue against heliocentrism as a model for scientific inquiry. What the thread did demonstrate in great detail and once and again is that Joshua 10 is inappropriately handled when considerations from outside the text are allowed to overthrow the straightforward statements of the text.



I am not comfortable with saying that we may believe one thing in science and another in theology.


----------



## py3ak

> I am not comfortable with saying that we may believe one thing in science and another in theology.



If I can adapt Dr. Johnson's words, "I see no necessity for your being comfortable." But what options do you have?
1. Prevent scientists from using models which are simplifying calculations and permitting more accurate predictions.
2. Revise your interpretations at every new edition of _Nature_.
Neither one is really attractive.


----------



## Philip

py3ak said:


> I am not comfortable with saying that we may believe one thing in science and another in theology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I can adapt Dr. Johnson's words, "I see no necessity for your being comfortable." But what options do you have?
> 1. Prevent scientists from using models which are simplifying calculations and permitting more accurate predictions.
> 2. Revise your interpretations at every new edition of _Nature_.
> Neither one is really attractive.
Click to expand...

 
But your option 3 seems to be, "Allow science to operate contrary to Scripture" which is unacceptable. It seems to me that we are hanging our hats (so to speak) on one passage, which very well could be interpreted phenomenologically, and in fact has consistently been interpreted thus by most reformed theologians since the 18th century. It seems to me that the intent of the passage in question as historical narrative is still preserved in such a reading.


----------



## py3ak

Science is provisional, and scientists are responsible for remembering that. Of course in our days scientists are often quite uppity and they, and their popularizers, make ridiculous claims about all manner of things that are outside of their purview; but these things shouldn't make us turn against scientific inquiry per se, or try to stop them from pursuing fruitful lines of inquiry. But their inquiries, theories and models are irrelevant to the interpretation of Scripture; they are not facts in the text.


----------



## lynnie

P. F. Pugh said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is heaven? Where is Jesus in his body right now? Inside the universe or outside? When an angel comes to bring a message can it travel faster than the distance from the farthest galaxy, like billions of light years? Or is heaven not too far, like Mars or Venus? Heaven is only as far as science says we can travel? So an angel can only go the speed of light from something? Pluto is 5 hours away light speed, so where is heaven? Past pluto?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These questions display an ignorance of basic metaphysics. Jesus in His body is currently outside the space-time continuum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Grudem's ST, page 617 ( Resurrection and ascension).....entire page.....Jesus in his body, and heaven, are located in the space-time universe. Lots of verses. Glad you made me go look this up, its a nice section
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where exactly does the Bible indicate this?
Click to expand...


Hi Philip, sorry to take so long, was out much of the day. It might be better if you read Wayne Grudem's entire commentary than for me to just quote some verses. He has them intermixed with comments. Section B of that chapter. I am sure your college must have a copy.

Just took a glance at JM Boice's "Foundations of the Christian Faith," under ascension. The Father is spirit but Jesus has a real body in heaven, a real physical place like New York or London.

Looking forward to the next life when I start thinking about all this 

---------- Post added at 09:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:30 PM ----------

Ruben....just an aside that while helios are quick to point out that their model is a little simpler, they seem to avoid the fact that Einstein's relativity is a whole lot more complicated than Newton's classic laws for measuring wave velocities. If we want to argue for simplicity, I'd say the geocentrists win on that one.


----------



## py3ak

Lynnie, I wouldn't set up simplicity as the standard of a good explanation; I was just saying that there's no need to stop using a certain model if it is giving good results for what you're doing and is easy to use. There are multiple ways of using a calculator to figure out a percentage, but the one where you actually use the _%_ button is so easy that I rarely do anything else.


----------



## Philip

> The Father is spirit but Jesus has a real body in heaven, a real physical place like New York or London.



Then here's the question: would it be theoretically possible to build a spaceship to travel to heaven? I don't deny that heaven has a physical existence, but it's an existence that also does not deny the full deity of Christ to be fully expressed in His glory, which would include atemporality and omnipresence. The question is not whether heaven is physical, but whether it is physically within the space-time dimension that we inhabit.


----------



## RTaron

CharlieJ said:


> Geocentricity is interesting in that the science presumes a firmament ( very dense, in which planets and stars move, like a scuba diver in water) as opposed to empty space...it actually explains a lot of things current modern theory can not explain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't this mean that we could bottle space and put it in a jar? Serious question.
Click to expand...

 
I have this question too. We should be able to determine the controversy regarding the nature of space by going up in a space ship. Is it dense or is it a like a vacuum? 
When they went to the moon, did they have to push the rocket ship through a dense firmament? or did they simply glide through space effortlessly? 

Or did they really ever go to the moon?


----------



## Austin

I have a hard time believing y'all are seriously discussing this. What's the point, even if geocentrism is right? (To which I can't believe anyone actually adheres.) Is there some virtue in being contrarian, or to holding to some obscurantist viewpoint? We should be spending our time engaging culture, science, art, etc, for Christ's Crown & Covenant, not attempting to be as obtuse as possible.


----------



## JennyG

Austin said:


> What's the point, even if geocentrism is right?


There's a point.
Supposing geocentrism could be proved - just imagine Dawkins or Hitchens trying to explain it away. The insignificance and cosmic marginality of Earth is one of the main planks of atheism.


----------



## Philip

JennyG said:


> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point, even if geocentrism is right?
> 
> 
> 
> There's a point.
> Supposing geocentrism could be proved - just imagine Dawkins or Hitchens trying to explain it away. The insignificance and cosmic marginality of Earth is one of the main planks of atheism.
Click to expand...

 
Not necessarily. Seeing our own insignificance in comparison to the rest of the cosmos has caused me to wonder that God would still care about people like you and I. "What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou carest for him?" The insignificance of earth takes on a whole new meaning when viewed through eyes of faith rather than doubt.


----------



## JennyG

P. F. Pugh said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Austin said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point, even if geocentrism is right?
> 
> 
> 
> There's a point.
> Supposing geocentrism could be proved - just imagine Dawkins or Hitchens trying to explain it away. The insignificance and cosmic marginality of Earth is one of the main planks of atheism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not necessarily. Seeing our own insignificance in comparison to the rest of the cosmos has caused me to wonder that God would still care about people like you and I. "What is man that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man that thou carest for him?" The insignificance of earth takes on a whole new meaning when viewed through eyes of faith rather than doubt.
Click to expand...

you can draw either lesson from insignificance, depending on your starting assumptions. I still think it would be a whole lot harder to maintain Man is the chance by-product of a, what is it? random process that did not have him in mind, if it could be shown that he is in fact the literal centre of the Universe.

---------- Post added at 06:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:38 PM ----------

I mean, the fact that you don't find it undermines your faith doesn't change the fact that it IS one of the main planks of atheism


----------



## lynnie

Rick, geos believe in travel to the moon and asteroids moving through space. Your mental picture of the firmament is wrong.

Here is a nice quote for TimV, I liked it.......

Rebuttal of North and Nieto


In the February 1992 issue of the American Journal of Physics, W. M. Stuckey published an analysis titled, "Can galaxies exist within our particle horizon with Hubble recessional velocities greater than c?" (pgs. 142-146). Stuckey proposes to measure the speed at which galaxies are traveling away from us, utilizing their red shift. His test object, a quasar with a red shift of 4.73, is computed to be receding from us at 2.8 times the speed of light. So why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light velocities for celestial bodies, and not a problem when mainstream scientists take such measurements in stride? 

Stuckey explains that the quasar is fleeing from us so rapidly (at what would at first glance appear to be a completely impos*sible velocity) due to a property of the space between here and there. The vacuum between us and the quasar is stretching and ex*panding, and thus carries the quasar away from us faster than the speed of light. When modern scientists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the expansion of space, we marvel at their wisdom and learning. When geocentrists inform us that objects can travel faster than light due to the rotation of space, we marvel at their insanity. Yet, both models stipulate the same origin of the superlight speed, namely, the intrinsic properties of the space in which the objects are placed.


----------



## Philip

> I mean, the fact that you don't find it undermines your faith doesn't change the fact that it IS one of the main planks of atheism



The main (and only) plank of atheism is that God does not exist. Not all atheists are materialists or naturalists.


----------



## JennyG

P. F. Pugh said:


> I mean, the fact that you don't find it undermines your faith doesn't change the fact that it IS one of the main planks of atheism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main (and only) plank of atheism is that God does not exist. Not all atheists are materialists or naturalists.
Click to expand...

not sure if I'm understanding you, Philip. I would have said they had to be, by definition.
I don't see "God does not exist" in this context as a premiss, but a conclusion - the planks it needs to rest on in an atheist's worldview have to be such supposed facts as, the Universe came from nothing in the Big Bang, Life forms were able to evolve by themselves without divine assistance, etc.


----------



## TimV

lynnie said:


> So why is it a problem when geocentrists propose faster-than-light velocities



I don't have a problem with faster than light speed. I just want to know why I look at Polaris and it's above the same tree every night if it's moving a million times faster than light. The problem with these sorts of theories is the same with all of them; that you have to keep patching.


----------



## Philip

> not sure if I'm understanding you, Philip. I would have said they had to be, by definition.
> I don't see "God does not exist" in this context as a premiss, but a conclusion - the planks it needs to rest on in an atheist's worldview have to be such supposed facts as, the Universe came from nothing in the Big Bang, Life forms were able to evolve by themselves without divine assistance, etc.



Atheism is simply the proposition "There is no God." Many Buddhists are atheistic, but I know of none who are materialistic. In the west, you'll find many non-materialistic atheists, such as Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. There were atheists before there was a big bang theory, or theories about the origin of life (evolutionary theory only began discussing the latter question in the mid-20th century---before that it was mainly a theory concerning species diversification).


----------



## Zenas

Question:

If the stars are moving faster than the light they're emitting, should there not be a significant amount of lag time between when the light was emitted and when it is viewed? Say Polaris is moving at Warp 20 as geocentrists posit, but the light it emits is moving at the customary speed. The light would then reach the Earth in the amount of time it takes the light to travel; not the speed at which Polaris is traveling. This being the case, shouldn't Polaris, along with every other star in the sky, appear to skip across the sky? The light being emitted wouldn't do so at a speed faster than light travels, ergo it wouldn't "ping" frequently enough to register as a visible body traveling in a continuous manner.

If you're having trouble conceptualizing what I'm asking, it's the same thing that happens with you fire bullets from a plane. Even if you fire bullets at the same rate you're travelling (which a star wouldn't because it's emitted at the speed at which light travels), the fact that you're travelling faster than the bullets travel means that the bullets wouldn't hit in a continuous stream. One would hit, then a few meters away another would hit, so on and so forth. 

An even more apt analogy is a radar screen. A plane on a radar screen wherein the radar pings in its direction slower than it is traveling will appear to jump across the screen. The return information indicating its location doesn't occur at the same rate at which it is travelling. As a result, the plane appears to skip. 

Why doesn't Polaris skip across the sky?


----------



## lynnie

I don't know because I don't know how fast they are moving. Geos think they are way way closer than is believed if the speed of light was once exponentially faster. 

I ordered the synopsis book, 100 pages instead of over 1000. I'll look it up when it gets here.

There is nothing you can ask that hasn't been discussed in the literature ( sort of like Reformed doctrine!). But I don't remember it all. And if you google " faster than light speed" you find all sorts of published work that shows how little we do know, and flaws with Einstein.


----------



## SRoper

Isn't Polaris a bad example for this discussion as it doesn't move? Or am I missing something?

While thinking about whether Polaris moves I'm reminded of axial precession. From the mainstream scientific perspective, this is explained by a wobble in the earth's rotation. How do geocentrists explain this phenomenon? Why do all the stars shift together as if they are on a solid shell? Why is Polaris stationary now, but 2000 years ago it traced out small circles in the sky, and in the future, it will start tracing out circles again? What's the physical explanation here?


----------



## lynnie

SRoper said:


> Isn't Polaris a bad example for this discussion as it doesn't move? Or am I missing something?
> 
> While thinking about whether Polaris moves I'm reminded of axial precession. From the mainstream scientific perspective, this is explained by a wobble in the earth's rotation. How do geocentrists explain this phenomenon? Why do all the stars shift together as if they are on a solid shell? Why is Polaris stationary now, but 2000 years ago it traced out small circles in the sky, and in the future, it will start tracing out circles again? What's the physical explanation here?



The main geo for laymen guy I read years ago detailed the evidence for some rotation, and maybe a wobble, I forget. They think a comet or small asteroid whacked the earth, maybe after the fall or at Noah's time, and started some movement.

Both models work, really. It isn't about models, it is about physics now. Classical laws vs Einstein. 

I need to read up. So many books, so little time.


----------

