# Geocentrism?



## thbslawson

I was shocked to come across someone the other day from a Reformed perspective that was a full-fledged geocentrist, believing that the earth did not, in fact, orbit the sun, but rather all things in the universe cosmologically revolved around the earth. I had heard things like this before, but assumed (or hoped) that it was more of a theological geocentric sort of thing, that earth and man was central in God's providence and plan, but not necessarily cosmologically so. 

I didn't know such wild notions existed. Saying that the earth revolves around the sun is nothing like, for instance, believing in evolution. It most certainly does not contradict scripture and can be easily observed and understood with clear empirical evidence.

Is this kind of belief still common?


----------



## Claudiu

It would not be incorrect to say that the sun revolves around the earth and vice versa. It depends what frame of reference in terms of physics one takes (i.e. absolute space vs. relative space). The debate goes back to Newton and Leibniz. For example, if we have two people holding hands and spinning around in a circle, who is the center? Who is spinning around who? One might say it's the one doing the most moving is spinning around the one that appears stationary, and hence the less moving one is the center. They may be true, but it can just as well be the other way around. In the end, this is all to say that neither position is correct, or rather both are, the sun revolves around earth and earth revolves around the sun.


----------



## earl40

thbslawson said:


> Is this kind of belief still common?



Not common but maybe correct.


----------



## earl40

Claudiu said:


> It would not be incorrect to say that the sun revolves around the earth and vice versa. It depends what frame of reference in terms of physics one takes (i.e. absolute space vs. relative space). The debate goes back to Newton and Leibniz. For example, if we have two people holding hands and spinning around in a circle, who is the center? Who is spinning around who? One might say it's the one doing the most moving. They may be true, but it can just as well be the other way around. In the end, this is all to say that neither position is correct, or rather both are, the sun revolves around earth and earth revolves around the sun.



Which also brings about the point that if the Lord stopped the entire universe from moving the sun stopped.


----------



## Afterthought

thbslawson said:


> Is this kind of belief still common?


Probably not, but if you want to see the biblically motivated reasons for why some hold to this view, there are a number of comprehensive threads on the PB to look for and a few side comments on other threads. I also recommend Wilhelmus a Brakel for the most complete systematic defense of geocentrism from the biblical text that I have yet seen (the PB threads have good exegetical discussions, but they do not always link all the ideas in Scripture on the matter together since this a forum). For a scientific treatment, there are a number of places you can easily find on the internet. Edit: The keyword to look up from a secular point of view is "Mach's principle," which is often appealed to by modern geocentrists giving a scientific defense.





Claudiu said:


> It would not be incorrect to say that the sun revolves around the earth and vice versa. It depends what frame of reference in terms of physics one takes (i.e. absolute space vs. relative space). The debate goes back to Newton and Leibniz. For example, if we have two people holding hands and spinning around in a circle, who is the center? Who is spinning around who? One might say it's the one doing the most moving. They may be true, but it can just as well be the other way around. In the end, this is all to say that neither position is correct, or rather both are, the sun revolves around earth and earth revolves around the sun.


From what I understand, modern physics says that acceleration is absolute (except over tiny patches of space), not relative. Perhaps more accurately (though I'm not sure yet): the effects of acceleration are absolute.

The example of the two people is fair enough. However, one usually tells who is revolving around who by the center of mass, which is what both revolve around. While this might keep us from telling which of those people are revolving around who, the sun is so much more massive than the earth that the center of mass is inside of the sun, causing a "wobble" as the sun revolves around it. If the center of mass was outside the sun, you would have a good point, though because of absolute acceleration, the earth's rotation would still be a problem and possibly its revolution still too (the problem of absolute acceleration is distinct from the considerations of the center of mass). I will admit that I haven't run these calculations for myself, but this is what I've heard scientists say.


----------



## thbslawson

We seem to have gotten rather technical, far more technical than I expected. 

Let me ask this simply; does the earth rotate on it's axis and does it orbit the sun?


----------



## CJW

I don't think it's particularly common (as I am the only geocentrist I know of in my sphere of face to face friends and acquaintances) but it's not unheard of, and I rejoiced to learn of others here who hold that view!

C. S. Lewis' The Discarded Image, which is not a theological book per se but rather a treatise on medieval and renaissance literature, was the work which brought about for me what can only be described as a radical paradigm shift (one of a few life and world view changes that I had as a fairly new believer). The final chapter in the book covered man's finite ability to truly "know" much about our universe outside the revelation of God, as we cannot get outside it to measure or quantify it. We cannot get outside our solar system to empirically measure what is happening, so the sun and earth may indeed be going around each other. Meditating on Joshua's long day was the final nail in the coffin of my belief in a heliocentric solar system. What is described there is simply not possible if the moon goes around the earth, and the earth goes around the sun. Of course, the Ptolymaic system may not be absolutely correct either; in Edward Hill's Defense of the King James Bible (an odd place to find such things to be sure!) he speaks of a Puritan who postulated that the sun goes around the earth with the other planets orbiting the sun. I don't have the exact reference off hand, but if you're at all interested let me know, and I'll see if I can find it 

Now, I am not a scientist of any kind, but there are geocentric scientists and members of this board with a far greater grasp on the scientific basis of it who can much better explain it than I have.


----------



## Edward

I am not of that camp, but here are some old threads so you can see who some of the Geocentrists on PB are - and aren't:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f60/central-sun-earth-54925/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f34/galileo-wrong-church-right-63372/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/question-concerning-wilhelmus-brakel-74070/


----------



## VictorBravo

thbslawson said:


> Let me ask this simply; does the earth rotate on it's axis and does it orbit the sun?



For the purpose of predicting the positions and states of heavenly objects, the easiest way to perform calculations uses this as a basic model. In other words, if we assume rotation of earth and it orbiting around sun, the calculations predicting what we see from our vantage point (or the moon's for that matter) are fairly easy and certainly elegant.

All of physics is based upon empirical observation. The underlying assumption is the universe is orderly. The equations scientists and theoreticians have developed demonstrate that observations of God's creation are remarkably consistent. That is an example of general revelation demonstrating that God's creation is orderly.

Having said all that, I keep in mind the true reality behind the empirical observations: it is simply that God, through Christ, is pushing around each point of his creation according to his will and purpose. (Hebrews 1:2,3 and elsewhere). One implication of this understanding is that the "law" of gravity, for example, is a shorthand way of saying that God requires (according to *his* natural law) that objects of mass appear to be attracted to one another according to a consistent pattern. Unlike rebellious Man, and rebellious angels, the rest of Creation unfailingly obeys what God requires.

Nevertheless, the ultimate mover is God, and I take his stewardship to be constantly active, ongoing, purposeful, occurring right now, and everlasting. This observation makes me a geocentrist, even though I am quite comfortable with the idea of using things like Lagrangian mechanics to predict trajectories and orbits.


----------



## Claudiu

Ditto to what brother Vic said. The only thing I would add is that the model's and theories used in science are just that, model's and theories. They are helpful in gaining understanding, or having something to work with, but we can't let them be an end in themselves when they are just a means. That is, scientists use the model's to interpret the data, but the model can sometimes change and still yield viable results (e.g. Newtonian physics vs. Einstein's theory of relativity).


----------



## CharlieJ

Yes, the earth orbits the sun in a way that is not mathematically equivalent to Ptolemy's or Brahe's systems. This is proved through stellar parallax. 

Yes, the earth rotates on its axis. This is proved (among other ways) through Foucault's pendulum. 

And because these threads have a tendency to head this direction, GPS satellites depend on the predictions made by both general and special relativity.


----------



## Loopie

Furthermore, if the current models and theories of the earth's placement and movement within the solar system are wrong, it would be unlikely that we would be able to launch successful missions to Mars. Scientists calculate when the distance between Mars and Earth is the shortest, and there would be times when Mars is on the opposite side of the sun in its orbit (suggesting that both planets orbit the same point, namely the sun). I just do not see how we could successfully perform so many space operations with such a completely faulty understanding of the solar system.


----------



## One Little Nail

thbslawson said:


> I didn't know such wild notions existed. Saying that the earth revolves around the sun is nothing like, for instance, believing in evolution. It most certainly does not contradict scripture and can be easily observed and understood with clear empirical evidence.
> 
> Is this kind of belief still common?



I hold to Geocentrism, and am Reformed, The Sun & Moon does indeed circuit the Immovable Earth on a Daily Basis according to Scripture,
Calvin & Luther and all The Reformers were Geocentrists.


----------



## One Little Nail

CharlieJ said:


> Yes, the earth orbits the sun in a way that is not mathematically equivalent to Ptolemy's or Brahe's systems. This is proved through stellar parallax.



The Michelson-Morley Experiment in the 19th Century proved that the Earth was stationary.



CharlieJ said:


> Yes, the earth rotates on its axis. This is proved (among other ways) through Foucault's pendulum.



A simple observation of starlight by timelapse photography can prove the Earth does not rotate on it's Axis.



CharlieJ said:


> And because these threads have a tendency to head this direction, GPS satellites depend on the predictions made by both general and special relativity.



I was under the impression that GPS Satellites were geostationary, that is they do not move!


----------



## One Little Nail

This Article at fixedearth.com Sixty 
shows 67 verses in 35 different Books of The Bible which say it is the Sun that moves & not the Earth.

Genesis 15:12...... "...and when the sun was going down..."

15:17..... "...when the sun went down..."

19:23..... "The sun was risen upon the earth."

28:11..... "...because the sun was set...."

32:31..... "...the sun rose...."

Exodus 17:12..... "...until the going down of the sun...."

22:3...... "...if the sun be risen upon him...."

22:26.... "...the sun goeth down...."

Leviticus 22:7...... "...And when the sun is down...."

Numbers 2:3........ "...toward the rising of the sun...."

Deuteronomy 11:30..... "...the way where the sun goeth down...."

16:6....... "...at the going down of the sun...."

23:11..... "...when the sun is down...."

24:13..... "...when the sun goeth down...."

24:15..... "...neither shall the sun go down...."

Joshua 1:4..... "...the going down of the sun...."

8:29... "...as soon as the sun was down...."

10:12.. "...Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon...."

10:13.. "...and the sun stood still...."

10:27.. "...the time of the going down of the sun...."

12:1.... "...toward the rising of the sun...."

Judges 5:31.... "...as the sun when he goeth down...."

8:13.... "...before the sun was up...."

9:33.... "...as soon as the sun is up...."

14:18.... "...before the sun went down...."

19:14.... "...and the sun went down...."

II Samuel 2:24.... "...the sun went down...."

3:35.... "...till the sun be down...."

23:4..... "...when the sun riseth...."

I Kings 22:36.... "...the going down of the sun...."

I Chronicles 16:30.... "...the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved...."

II Chronicles 18:34.... "...time of the sun going down...."

Job 9:7.... "...commandeth the sun and it riseth not...."

Job 26:7.... "...He hangeth the earth upon nothing...."

Psalm 19:4.... "...tabernacle for the sun...."

19:5 ... "...cometh out to run...."

19:6.... "...goes forth in a circle from one end of heaven to the other...."

50:1.... "...from the rising of the sun...."

93:1.... "...the world also is stablished that it cannot be moved...."

104:19.. "...the sun knoweth his going down...."

104:22.. "...the sun ariseth...."

113:3.... "...from the rising of the sun...."

Ecclesiastes 1:5.... "...The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down

and hasteth to the place where he arose...."

Isaiah 13:10.... "...sun shall be darkened in his going...."

38:8...... "...is gone down on the sundial of Ahaz...."

38:8...... "...so the sun returned...."

41:25.... "...from the rising of the sun...."

45:6...... "...from the rising of the sun...."

59:19.... "...from the rising of the sun...."

60:20.... "...the sun shall no more go down...."

Jeremiah 15:9.... "...her sun is gone down while it was yet day...."

Daniel 6:14.... "...going down of the sun...."

Amos 8:9.... "...cause the sun to go down at noon...."

Jonah 4:8.... "...when the sun did arise...."

Micah 3:6.... "...and the sun shall go down...."

Nahum 3:17.... "...when the sun ariseth...."

Habakkuk 3:11.... "...the sun and moon stood still in their habitation...."

Malachi 1:11.... "...from the rising of the sun...."

Matthew 5:45.... "...for He maketh His sun to rise...."

13:6..... "...and when the sun was up...."

Mark 1:32.... "...when the sun did set...."

4:6...... "...when the sun was up...."

16:2...... "...at the rising of the sun...."

Luke 4:40.... "...when the sun was setting...."

Ephesians 4:26.... "...let not the sun go down upon your wrath...."

James 1:11.... "...for the sun is no sooner risen...."



That is a Total of 67 Verses in 35 Books of the Bible Which Say

that It Is the Sun that Moves and Not the Earth!


Some of these verses will be argued that they are spoken of as from mans observation but when we place them together
with some irrefutable Scriptures like Psalm 19:6 which clearly state that the Sun has a circuit, Isaiah 38:8 which says the Sun returned ten degrees, Joshua 10:12-13 state Joshua commanded the Sun & Moon to stand still and they both stood still
as they were commanded, as Scriptures which speak of the Earth being stationary like 1 Chronicles 16:30 the world also shall be stable, that it be not moved & Psalm 93:1 the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved. if you look at the fact that the Earth was created on the First Day of Creation whereas the Sun & Moon were created on the Forth Day of Creation Genesis 1:14-19 so the Earth could not rotate around something which did no exist? and a clincher for me which was not mentioned is James 1:17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. no shadow of turning this is a direct comparison to the Sun which casts a shadow of turning due to its motion, you will see that the Testimony of The Scriptures is Geocentricism.

I am not a pagan sun worshipper, this doctrine of a motionless sun at the centre of the heavens was contrived by sun god
worshippers, who wished to exalt it, please do not fall for their wiles, 
you can do this by placing the sun in its God ordained position of subordinate servanthood to mankind on the Earth.


----------



## Philip

One Little Nail said:


> That is a Total of 67 Verses in 35 Books of the Bible Which Say that It Is the Sun that Moves and Not the Earth!



Is such language being used in the modern scientific sense in Scripture, or in the ordinary sense?



One Little Nail said:


> I am not a pagan sun worshipper, this doctrine of a motionless sun at the centre of the heavens was contrived by sun god worshippers



Copernicus? Galileo? Newton? Sun god worshippers? You need some evidence there.



One Little Nail said:


> you can do this by placing the sun in its God ordained position of subordinate servanthood to mankind on the Earth.



Now here you make a false dichotomy: theologically, we are all geocentrists. The theological center of the universe is the earth: it is unique in the heavens. No question. But in terms of scientific models, it is not the center any more than the sun is. The sun has been placed where it is in order that earth may be warmed and in order that man may have life on the earth. You are confusing cosmographic location with importance here.


----------



## thbslawson

I think I have my answer.


----------



## thbslawson

And by the way, the fact that GPS satellites are in geosynchronous orbit proves the rotation of the earth. A satellite cannot be in geosynchronous orbit unless the earth is spinning.


----------



## Mushroom

It flummoxes me that such intelligent people have such difficulty wrapping their minds around this. Perhaps there's some advantage to being a relative simpleton.

Yes, a heliocentric model is useful in using gravitational forces for space flight. One day it may be that a galaxy-centric model will be of use for intergalactic travel. But that's all they are - models. Light parallax, gravity, etc., all operate within differing paradigms according to source and force. But, as Einstein proved, motion is relative to the observer. There is a geocentric model. It's complicated when trying to map the SOLAR system, and the Milky Way, but it is where we stand as we look out into the heavens. We can make sense of order we detect in the shadows on the wall, and make predictions accordingly that will be correct, but they are still shadows on the wall.

I'm glad I'm just dumb enough to remember that...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Geocentricity has nothing to do with the earth's spinning on its axis. Just sayin'.


----------



## MW

John Owen (Works 19:310): "the late hypothesis, fixing the sun as in the centre of the world, built on fallible phenomena, and advanced by many arbitrary presumptions, against evident testimonies of Scripture and reasons as probable as any that are produced in its confirmation."


----------



## thbslawson

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Geocentricity has nothing to do with the earth's spinning on its axis. Just sayin'.



How ya figure?


----------



## VictorBravo

Moderator's note

I have deleted off-topic posts and a post with name-calling. 

Robert, stay on topic, refrain from personal attacks, or stay away from this thread.


----------



## CharlieJ

Mushroom said:


> It flummoxes me that such intelligent people have such difficulty wrapping their minds around this. Perhaps there's some advantage to being a relative simpleton.
> 
> Yes, a heliocentric model is useful in using gravitational forces for space flight. One day it may be that a galaxy-centric model will be of use for intergalactic travel. But that's all they are - models. Light parallax, gravity, etc., all operate within differing paradigms according to source and force. But, as Einstein proved, motion is relative to the observer. There is a geocentric model. It's complicated when trying to map the SOLAR system, and the Milky Way, but it is where we stand as we look out into the heavens. We can make sense of order we detect in the shadows on the wall, and make predictions accordingly that will be correct, but they are still shadows on the wall.
> 
> I'm glad I'm just dumb enough to remember that...



Brad, what you are saying about models is true enough. According to relativity, any position can arbitrarily be chosen as a center of a frame of reference, so we could have a Saturn-centric cosmology if we wanted to. Fine. But that's not the geocentrism that geocentric proponents argue for. They assert that the Earth is the REAL center of the ONE true (non-relative) frame. That's why every geocentrist I've run across (admittedly, only a handful) also disagrees with Einstein. That's why they make bizarre claims about the Michelson-Morley experiments, interpreting them in ways that no scientists do. That's why they post lists of Bible verses that supposedly establish the REAL scientific cosmology. 

There is one more important point, though. As far as I understand (and I could be wrong here), relativity is only a quantitative description of the motion of objects. We may have logical reasons for preferring one frame of reference to another. One can equally validly mathematically represent a train moving east at 80 mph relative to a stationary observer or a observer moving west 80 mph relative to a stationary train. Would we not, though, have logical reasons for preferring one way of describing the situation?


----------



## MW

CharlieJ said:


> That's why every geocentrist I've run across (admittedly, only a handful) also disagrees with Einstein.



I have found the opposite to be the case.


----------



## SRoper

GPS satellites are not geosynchronous--they orbit the earth at high speeds. They are engineered so that their clocks run slower to take into account special and general relativity. A precise clock is essential in accurately determining position. If they didn't take relativity into account they would be too inaccurate for most uses within a matter of minutes. I suppose relativity deniers could come up with an ad-hoc alternate explanation for why this engineering change is required, but it is curious that it lines up with exactly what relativity predicts.

Robert, what would happen if Michelson-Morley was performed on the Moon? You would predict that it would show a different result than on the Earth. I predict it would show the same result as on Earth (and thus confirm relativity). Seems simple enough to test.

When scientists speak of the earth revolving around the sun, they are speaking of the center point of the Earth-Sun system being inside the sun. This is undeniably true. Someone referred to an analogy of two people swinging around each other. We see something like this in nature in the case of many binary star systems. In this case, one would not speak of one star revolving around the other since the center of the system is between the two stars. Both stars are revolving around each other. However, the Earth-Sun system is not like this. It is analogous to an adult man swinging his child around him. I suppose one could say the father is revolving around his son, but this would be an unnatural way to speak of the arrangement when observing it from the outside. The child would say would say that the room is spinning around, and that seems perfectly natural.


----------



## Mushroom

CharlieJ said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> It flummoxes me that such intelligent people have such difficulty wrapping their minds around this. Perhaps there's some advantage to being a relative simpleton.
> 
> Yes, a heliocentric model is useful in using gravitational forces for space flight. One day it may be that a galaxy-centric model will be of use for intergalactic travel. But that's all they are - models. Light parallax, gravity, etc., all operate within differing paradigms according to source and force. But, as Einstein proved, motion is relative to the observer. There is a geocentric model. It's complicated when trying to map the SOLAR system, and the Milky Way, but it is where we stand as we look out into the heavens. We can make sense of order we detect in the shadows on the wall, and make predictions accordingly that will be correct, but they are still shadows on the wall.
> 
> I'm glad I'm just dumb enough to remember that...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brad, what you are saying about models is true enough. According to relativity, any position can arbitrarily be chosen as a center of a frame of reference, so we could have a Saturn-centric cosmology if we wanted to. Fine. But that's not the geocentrism that geocentric proponents argue for. They assert that the Earth is the REAL center of the ONE true (non-relative) frame. That's why every geocentrist I've run across (admittedly, only a handful) also disagrees with Einstein. That's why they make bizarre claims about the Michelson-Morley experiments, interpreting them in ways that no scientists do. That's why they post lists of Bible verses that supposedly establish the REAL scientific cosmology.
> 
> There is one more important point, though. As far as I understand (and I could be wrong here), relativity is only a quantitative description of the motion of objects. We may have logical reasons for preferring one frame of reference to another. One can equally validly mathematically represent a train moving east at 80 mph relative to a stationary observer or a observer moving west 80 mph relative to a stationary train. Would we not, though, have logical reasons for preferring one way of describing the situation?
Click to expand...

Preferences derive from the intent of the one doing the preferring, brother. In the case of trains and observers, that preference may fall on which side of the example one might stand. I suppose since the majority of observers would be on the side of the stationary observer, it would be serviceable to explain it as a train moving at 80 MPH. And if one is tasked with using gravitational forces to implement interplanetary flight, or to give a simpler illustration of nearby heavenly bodies, a heliocentric model is preferable. But preferable does not mean exclusive. God created the Earth for the purpose of displaying His glory through the redemption purchased by His Son. Everything else in creation He designed to complement that purpose. So in the paradigm that matters most in all history, the Earth IS the center of creation.

The model used in electrical sciences for many long years was proven incorrect in relatively recent times; we once thought electrons flowed from positive to negative, now we know the opposite is true, but the model still works. Workable models are useful, but they aren't indicative of monolithic truth, why adhere to them as though they do?


----------



## J Miles

"16. The greater light..

I have said, that Moses does not here subtilely descant, as a philosopher, on the secrets of nature, as may be seen in these words. 

First, he assigns a place in the expanse of heaven to the planets and stars; but astronomers make a distinction of spheres, and, at the same time, teach that the fixed stars have their proper place in the firmament. Moses makes two great luminaries; but astronomers prove, by conclusive reasons that the star of Saturn, which on account of its great distance, appears the least of all, is greater than the moon. 

Here lies the difference; Moses wrote in a popular style things which without instruction, all ordinary persons, endued with common sense, are able to understand; but astronomers investigate with great labor whatever the sagacity of the human mind can comprehend. Nevertheless, this study is not to be reprobated, nor this science to be condemned, because some frantic persons are wont boldly to reject whatever is unknown to them. 

For astronomy is not only pleasant, but also very useful to be known: it cannot be denied that this art unfolds the admirable wisdom of God. Wherefore, as ingenious men are to be honored who have expended useful labor on this subject, so they who have leisure and capacity ought not to neglect this kind of exercise. Nor did Moses truly wish to withdraw us from this pursuit in omitting such things as are peculiar to the art; but because he was ordained a teacher as well of the unlearned and rude as of the learned, he could not otherwise fulfill his office than by descending to this grosser method of instruction. 

Had he spoken of things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for all, it is not surprising that he should chiefly choose those subjects which would be intelligible to all. If the astronomer inquires respecting the actual dimensions of the stars, he will find the moon to be less than Saturn; but this is something abstruse, for to the sight it appears differently. 

Moses, therefore, rather adapts his discourse to common usage. For since the Lord stretches forth, as it were, his hand to us in causing us to enjoy the brightness of the sun and moon, how great would be our ingratitude were we to close our eyes against our own experience? There is therefore no reason why janglers should deride the unskilfulness of Moses in making the moon the second luminary; for he does not call us up into heaven, he only proposes things which lie open before our eyes. 

Let the astronomers possess their more exalted knowledge; but, in the meantime, they who perceive by the moon the splendor of night, are convicted by its use of perverse ingratitude unless they acknowledge the beneficence of God."

John Calvin's commentary on Genesis 1:16

Commentary on Genesis - Volume 1 - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

This is one of my favorite parts of this commentary. It also disproves the idea that Calvin held his particular views on astronomy solely based of the Bible.


----------



## One Little Nail

SRoper said:


> .
> Robert, what would happen if Michelson-Morley was performed on the Moon? You would predict that it would show a different result than on the Earth. I predict it would show the same result as on Earth (and thus confirm relativity). Seems simple enough to test.



Didn't their experiment split light & have it travel in 2 diferent directions by mirrors in a cube shape apparatus which then 
met back up, and because the 2 lights travelled back to this point at the same time didn't it prove that the earth didnt move, on the moon it would show a difference when the 2 light sources merged, a noticeable lag would be seen on 1 light, due to the moons movement. 



SRoper said:


> When scientists speak of the earth revolving around the sun, they are speaking of the center point of the Earth-Sun system being inside the sun. This is undeniably true.



But God says that the Earth is stationary & that the Sun does the moving,so who is correct! most scientists say that God does not exist either! let God be true & man a Liar I say haha, we should believe our Creator who created the heavens & 
the earth as he would know what the true cosmology is, well you would think so.


----------



## Tirian

Joshua prayed for the sun to be still, and God acquiesced to his petition. The sun stood still. The heliocentric system is useful and forms part of an ever growing, evolving, refining, changing body of knowledge gained through discovery and experimentation.

We shouldn't alter the plain reading of scripture though. Nor is the door closed on their being some further discovery that alters or shifts the the heliocentric model.

We shouldn't expect a discovery to emerge that alters scripture.


----------



## One Little Nail

Philip said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a Total of 67 Verses in 35 Books of the Bible Which Say that It Is the Sun that Moves and Not the Earth!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is such language being used in the modern scientific sense in Scripture, or in the ordinary sense?
Click to expand...


The scripture is making plain, truthful & Infallible Statements on this matter,The Bible is Infallible in all matters whether relating to Faith or whether to "science", you can't separate The Faith,Doctrine & Scripture into one compartment & hold to observable phenomena i.e. natural "sciences" in another.

Science see's things from a humanistic unbelieving position & believes that God & His Scriptures are in error when they make their "observations" regarding those things that He Himself Created, we should not believe & have faith in the teachings of science which is usually just the fallible observations & speculations of fallen man whose understanding is darkened & whose carnal mind is in enmity to God & His Truth, can you see the folly & absurdity of that position?



Philip said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a pagan sun worshipper, this doctrine of a motionless sun at the centre of the heavens was contrived by sun god worshippers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Copernicus? Galileo? Newton? Sun god worshippers? You need some evidence there.
Click to expand...


Copernicus maybe as he was a pagan greek, I'm not saying everybody who holds to Heliocentricity is a sun worshipper,
but take for instance the Jesuits they have been pushing this theory through colleges & universities overtly & covertly
as part of the Counter-Reformation to destroy Protestantism & trust in the Scriptures, & they are a solar cultus.



Philip said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can do this by placing the sun in its God ordained position of subordinate servanthood to mankind on the Earth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now here you make a false dichotomy: theologically, we are all geocentrists. The theological centre of the universe is the earth: it is unique in the heavens. No question. But in terms of scientific models, it is not the center any more than the sun is. The sun has been placed where it is in order that earth may be warmed and in order that man may have life on the earth. You are confusing cosmographic location with importance here.
Click to expand...


I believe it is science & heliocentrists who are the ones making the false dichotomy.

Theologically, we are all Geocentrists, wow!

I don't think the Bible is presenting it "theologically" its making a statement that the Earth is in it's Geocentric Position Scripturally,Which is to say that it is were God has said he has placed it,so that it is located there both Theologically & in accordance with "science" that is in actual physical terms it is stationary, with the sun rotating around the Earth,as the regulator of night & day and the seasons, I think we ought to take Scripture in there plain ordinary sense here.


----------



## Philip

One Little Nail said:


> The scripture is making plain, truthful & Infallible Statements on this matter,



It is talking phenomenologically, much the same way as it is when it refers to "the four corners of the earth." We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners? How does it have foundations (Job 38)?



One Little Nail said:


> you can't separate The Faith,Doctrine & Scripture into one compartment & hold to observable phenomena i.e. natural "sciences" in another.



I'm not claiming that you do, merely claiming that Scripture uses the ordinary sense of words, which is phenomenological, not scientific. That is, the Scriptures speak from the perspective of a viewer, and the use of language here implies nothing about the gravitational situations of heavenly bodies.



One Little Nail said:


> Science see's things from a humanistic unbelieving position & believes that God & His Scriptures are in error when they make their "observations" regarding those things that He Himself Created



Again, this would be news to the men who actually started the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries. (Copernicus, by the way, was a 16th century Polish canon lawyer). The men who started looking at these things did so from the perspective that God is a God of order and his universe obeys universal laws.



One Little Nail said:


> I'm not saying everybody who holds to Heliocentricity is a sun worshipper,
> but take for instance the Jesuits they have been pushing this theory through colleges & universities overtly & covertly
> as part of the Counter-Reformation to destroy Protestantism & trust in the Scriptures, & they are a solar cultus.



Ah, so that whole banning of Copernicus and Galileo in the 17th century was just a farce then? The counter-reformation actually tried to suppress heliocentrism and it was only because of the freedom of thought in Protestant countries like England and the Netherlands that it flourished in the 17th century. Sorry, conspiracy theories based on dubious assumptions impress me very little. I suggest reading the actual history.



One Little Nail said:


> I don't think the Bible is presenting it "theologically" its making a statement that the Earth is in it's Geocentric Position Scripturally,Which is to say that it is were God has said he has placed it,so that it is located there both Theologically & in accordance with "science" that is in actual physical terms it is stationary, with the sun rotating around the Earth,as the regulator of night & day and the seasons, I think we ought to take Scripture in there plain ordinary sense here.



The plain ordinary sense here is phenomenological. A heliocentrist does not take his girlfriend to watch the earth-turn but to watch the sunset. The ordinary language of everyday life (which the the plain ordinary sense in which Scripture is written) speaks phenomenologically. We also describe carrots and potatoes as vegetables, when they are roots. We use names for our days of the week and months of the year taken from pagan mythology. It is in this kind of wonderful ordinary everyday unscientific language that Scripture speaks because it speaks to wonderful ordinary everyday unscientific people. And from this perspective, of course we are geocentrists because the earth is where we are: it is the perspective from which we view the universe and the stage for redemptive history.

But I don't think we should take this as binding us to an Aristotelian or even Tychonic view of the universe in a scientific sense. Those models are not taught in Scripture any more than heliocentrism. The language of Scripture is simply not intended to give us a cosmographical description of relative movement.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Philip said:


> We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?


----------



## InSlaveryToChrist

Philip said:


> We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?



Maybe people today have an unbiblical view of corners.


----------



## Afterthought

On some of the philosophical issues involved with this question, here is a discussion on absolute rotation and the notes look useful too. Here is a lengthy discussion on inertial reference frames.



CharlieJ said:


> There is one more important point, though. As far as I understand (and I could be wrong here), relativity is only a quantitative description of the motion of objects. We may have logical reasons for preferring one frame of reference to another. One can equally validly mathematically represent a train moving east at 80 mph relative to a stationary observer or a observer moving west 80 mph relative to a stationary train. Would we not, though, have logical reasons for preferring one way of describing the situation?


There is definitely a difference between mathematically being able to represent motion and giving a physical theory to describe it. However, from what I've seen and understand the reasons for choosing one frame or another are usually practical, i.e., whatever makes the calculation easier. The lack of preference between frames refers to physics, i.e., the form of the laws of physics, not to lack of philosophical reasons or preferences, or to whether a frame is inertial (no acceleration effects like Coriolis effect are present) or not. Nevertheless, if one chooses to describe the motion of the sun and earth with respect to the solar system (which is an approximate inertial frame), the earth moves around the sun. "Common sense" would say then that the earth really does move around the sun, since experience shows us that to tell who is moving one needs to look on the situation at a distance, similar to the way that we would say that the train moves while the observer doesn't (and also that this frame is approximately inertial, unlike the earth frame which is noninertial).

But then, that same "common sense" may say that we need to look from a larger distance out, and recognizing the complexity of motion, may say that regardless of how it appears at that larger distance, both are true in different senses. And then, that same sense may believe that the preferred frame from God's perspective would be the earth centered one. Such does not require an entirely new scientific theory to accommodate, but instead, it could remain a theological statement (or more properly, "perspective"), rather than necessarily motivating an entirely new scientific theory. That is what I understand many of those who believe geocentrism on Scriptural grounds to argue, but of course, those who believe it on Scriptural grounds would not want to hang their arguments on science, since it could change to be hostile to their views at some point; the concern for non-conflict with science just tends to be a hermeneutical issue ("to what extent must Scripture not contradict scientific findings and be interpreted in light of them?") or a "even science doesn't disallow it, so you have no reason to object."

Edit: In all this, I am speaking in terms of picking a frame of reference. Acceleration and rotation I already gave my understanding of, and I have a link at the top of this post on them too.


----------



## Free Christian

[quote We all know that the world is round, so how can the world have corners?[/quote]
Don't forget the "pillars" as well!


----------



## MW

How long is a piece of string? It is impossible to provide ultimate calculations for that which has nothing but a functional definition. All explanations of matter and motion end up being self-referential. They do not describe ultimate reality.


----------



## lynnie

Dont miss Martin Selbrede:

Geocentricity critics refuse to do their homework

I am a geocentrist. Both models work and work perfectly to predict eclipses and the path of the planets and so forth. Even a secular high school textbook on Astronomy I have points out that both models work. The heliocentric is simpler- in geocentric the planets orbit the sun which orbits the earth. But both work. Either one in that sense is acceptable

The real question is, does a wave of light behave like other waves, the way we hear sound waves go up and down in pitch when an ambulance goes by? The velocity of the ambulance is added or subtracted to the velocity of the sound waves blaring from the horn, hence higher or lower pitch according to the speed of the sound wave.

Michaelson and Morley were the first to show that the speed of light coming from a star stays the same if you are allegedly rushing towards the star at one moment during the year, and six months later are rushing away from the star in the earth's orbit around the sun. The change in the speed of light is zero, unlike the ambulance where the pitch goes up or down. The velocity of the earth does not add to, or decrease, the measurement of speed of the lightwave. It essentially proves geocentricity ( along with other phenomena) unless you subscribe to the theory of relativity, Einstein's attempt to reconcile heliocentrism with Michaelson- Morley. I am not great at explaining it but that's the core of it. Both geocentric models and heliocentric models work for our observations of the solar system. So it really comes down to classic physics for light waves, or relativity. 

I am pretty sure most of the more known names are Reformed. Gerhardus Bouw is, and Malcolm Bowden in England. Quite a few astrophysics PhDs among them.


----------



## lynnie

"_We seem to have gotten rather technical, far more technical than I expected. 

Let me ask this simply; does the earth rotate on it's axis and does it orbit the sun?_"

I should add that at least some geocentrists do believe in some small degree of rotation along the axis introduced after the fall. Somebody holds to an original 360 day years with the moon in sync for 12x 30 day months. That may be speculative and I forget who is into that theory. But being geocentric does not necessarily mean believing that after the fall in Eden, the earth stayed entirely motionless. It is late and I am too tired to try and look up which guys think what. As I recall the violent break up at the flood with the fountains of the deep erupting ( and maybe a asteroidal type hit) may have lurched it into some rotation on the axis.


----------



## Logan

lynnie said:


> Michaelson and Morley were the first to show that the speed of light coming from a star stays the same if you are allegedly rushing towards the star at one moment during the year, and six months later are rushing away from the star in the earth's orbit around the sun. The change in the speed of light is zero, unlike the ambulance where the pitch goes up or down. The velocity of the earth does not add to, or decrease, the measurement of speed of the lightwave. It essentially proves geocentricity ( along with other phenomena) unless you subscribe to the theory of relativity, Einstein's attempt to reconcile heliocentrism with Michaelson- Morley. I am not great at explaining it but that's the core of it. Both geocentric models and heliocentric models work for our observations of the solar system. So it really comes down to classic physics for light waves, or relativity.



My M.S. is in electromagnetics and I work in radar and let me assure you that a Doppler shift is real, we use it all the time to detect the speeds of moving aircraft and such. We use electromagnetic waves that barely go into the Gigahertz range, while light is in the 400 to 800 THz range (about 400,000 times higher frequency). Visible light is higher-frequency electromagnetic waves, and it makes sense that it would behave much the same (aside from some particle behavior but I digress). The reason it's so difficult to detect any frequency shift and _especially_ with instruments of the 1800s is because it's so high of a frequency, in the many trillions of Hertz range. Keep in mind that the speed of light, in terms you're familiar with, is about 670 million mph, and to see a shift from say, red to orange (very small shift) would require you to travel 141 million mph relative to the source. Did Michelson and Morley come close to that speed? Keep in mind that the earth (or the sun if you're geocentrist) is only moving at 67,000 mph!

So the change in the speed of light isn't zero, it's just so, so small at the speeds we can attain that it's barely detectable, and certainly not detectable in the 1800s.

Nevertheless, we do see a doppler shift toward red light from distant stars, if you followed the recent starlight thread.

Question: I'm familiar with Michelson's and Morley's famous experiment to determine the speed of light (amazing experiment) but am not familiar with the one being cited by geocentrists. Is it from the same experiment or a different one?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

I followed this thread and looked through some of the older ones where amourbearer has gone into more detail of his view, which seems to center around an exegetical treatment of the passage in Joshua 10. 

I understand the belief that if God says the sun stood still, then the sun must have stood still and not just "seemed" to stand still. But when I read the passage this is what I see: "The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day."

From either perspective: heliocentric or geocentric, the sun stopped in the midst of heaven. This is what Joshua wanted to happen, this is what the people observed, this is what the Bible tells us: the sun stopped in the midst of heaven. I believe it. The mechanics of how that was accomplished seem irrelevant and to me it makes sense with either model.

But to take an absolutely literal, wooden exegesis of it and say this means the sun stopped, not the earth, and therefore the universe is geocentric is seems somewhat needless and frightening to me because it goes against all observation. I find this frightening because it seems to mean that we can do no exploration, no discovery, no fulfillment of the mandate to subdue the earth and discover God's creation. The solar system looks and behaves heliocentric. Every other solar system looks and behaves heliocentric, gravity behaves in a predictable way where smaller masses orbit greater masses for every single thing in the universe and I see order everywhere except the earth? In other words, how can I believe anything my eyes tell me? How can I discover anything if for all I know, it's just an illusion? The earth _appears_ to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?

That we shouldn't let science dictate how to read the Bible I agree, but are we so certain this is what the Bible means that we're willing to ignore all observation? Or is there a very simple way in which they are harmonized and we gain understanding and admiration for what God has made? This I believe is the heliocentric model, and God did make the sun stop in the "midst of heaven".


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> How long is a piece of string? It is impossible to provide ultimate calculations for that which has nothing but a functional definition. All explanations of matter and motion end up being self-referential. They do not describe ultimate reality.


Would you elaborate further what you mean by all of these explanations being "self-referential"? And why does this and having nothing but a functional definition do not describe ultimate reality? Perhaps better still, is there a philosophical or theological work you could recommend that discusses this?




Logan said:


> Every other solar system looks and behaves heliocentric, gravity behaves in a predictable way where smaller masses orbit greater masses for every single thing in the universe and I see order everywhere except the earth?


As an aside, this is actually the reason I've seen some geocentrists who defend the view on scientific grounds say that the earth is in the center of the universe and is not moving. Whatever is at the center is at a special place and can be expected to not move, unlike other similar objects that are not at the center.




Logan said:


> In other words, how can I believe anything my eyes tell me? How can I discover anything if for all I know, it's just an illusion? The earth appears to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?


It's not a matter of sense, but the systematization of sense. If you were on the earth, you see the sun move. If you were on the moon, you would "see" the earth rotate at the same rate you see an hour hand move on a clock. You still may find that problematic, but it seems to me precision is very important on this point.


Rev. Winzer can respond to your questions on his view in the way that he chooses, but it should be noted that in those past threads he has not denied the use of the heliocentric model for science and has explicitly said that there may be a true sense in which the earth goes around the sun. Perhaps my previous post was too dense or technical to make that point explicit, but the sort of geocentrism I've seen advocated on the PB and possibly in some other places too (my memory fails me here) has never denied that heliocentrism could be true in some sense nor that it could be used in science to systematize our observations. Rather, the concern for geocentrism has been an exegetical or revelation perspective on the matter, which since from a divine perspective, is what is true according to absolute ("ultimate") reality.

Further, (and I'm sure you noted this, but just in case) it should be noted the exegetical argument takes into account all of Scripture, not just Joshua. I again recommend Wilhelmus a Brakel's discussion on the matter if you haven't looked at it already.


Also, general relativity will answer most of your scientific questions....to a certain degree, anyway (as I noted in my previous posts in this thread). I can give you a hostile witness to it if you wish.


----------



## Logan

Afterthought said:


> It's not a matter of sense, but the systematization of sense. If you were on the earth, you see the sun move. If you were on the moon, you would "see" the earth rotate at the same rate you see an hour hand move on a clock. You still may find that problematic, but it seems to me precision is very important on this point.



I'm aware of this. I have a pretty solid grasp of coordinate systems and frames of reference, the main objection would be how things behave gravitationally. A geocentric model seems to assume that even though smaller masses orbit larger masses, it's really just an illusion, or it works that way with everything but the earth. It's possible, but it certainly seems unnatural! A person may certainly believe in an absolute coordinate system that centers on the earth. They may also believe that north is "up" and south is "down".



Afterthought said:


> Also, general relativity will answer most of your scientific questions....to a certain degree, anyway (as I noted in my previous posts in this thread).



I don't have any problems with general relativity or using alternate frames of reference. My questions were primarily rhetorical, I don't have any doubts in my own mind.


----------



## py3ak

Logan said:


> The earth _appears_ to orbit the sun but in reality it's reversed?
> 
> That we shouldn't let science dictate how to read the Bible I agree, but are we so certain this is what the Bible means that we're willing to ignore all observation?



But that isn't what appears. What you observe almost daily is the sun progressing from one point of the sky to another. That's hardly ignoring "all observation," when it matches the quotidian observation of every sighted human being on the planet.


----------



## Cymro

Someone asked how long was a piece of string? Remembering my
school days, it is twice as long as the middle to the end.
But seriously, someone unrelated to the board or to this discussion,
sent me this week The Biblical Astronomer. I had no knowledge that
this magazine existed and found it (and this discussion fascinating),
and would ask fellow members their estimation of its scholarship and
value.
,


----------



## Loopie

As far as the 'sun standing still in the sky', the issue is not so much heliocentrism as it is the rotation of the earth. We can debate all day about whether the earth orbits the sun or not, but the question really is: "Does the earth rotate on its axis?" If it does not rotate on its axis, then based on a geocentric model, what Joshua was observing was actually true in a astronomical sense (the sun was orbiting the earth, and the earth did not rotate at all). But if the earth does rotate on its axis, then that would contribute to the 'apparent' motion of the sun across the sky. 

Now, I believe it is much harder to argue that the earth does not rotate, then it is to argue that the earth orbits the sun. The very existence of geosynchronous satellites makes it logically impossible that the earth does not rotate. If you put a satellite into space, and you want it to stay centered over Las Vegas, there is a certain distance you have to send the satellite away from the earth. This is because the earth's gravity would eventually pull the satellite back into itself. So the satellite has to have a certain orbital velocity (akin to centrifugal force) in order to offset the gravitational force that is 'pulling' the satellite back to earth. Of course, if the satellite is going too fast, it won't match the rotation of the earth, and it won't stay above the same point on the ground. That is why the satellite must be further away, so that it can go fast enough to offset the gravitational force while staying over the same point on the earth as the earth itself also rotates.

So, immediately we have an apparent conundrum. If the earth does not rotate, then it is impossible for satellites to be put into geosynchronous orbits (and not fall back to the earth). If the earth DOES rotate, then it's own rotational velocity would have contributed to the sun 'appearing to move' across the sky in Joshua's time. So when God performed a miracle of 'stopping' the sun in the sky, this must have involved SOME stopping of the earth's rotation, even if the sun orbits the earth. This is because, even if you hold to geocentrism (in an astronomical sense), the earth's rotation would still be contributing towards the sun 'moving', and so that rotation would have to be 'stopped' for the sun to be 'fully stopped' in the sky. Either way, in some sense the Bible is using observational language, and not making a statement regarding the astronomical situation of the solar system.


----------



## Mushroom

Models are useful to specific purposes, but as has been shown previously, models may be in error and still be useful.

As for Michaelson - Morley, Einstein will be sorely grieved to hear that it was just too primitive to detect the differences necessary to determine changes in the speed of light, since it was part of his motivation to come up with General Relativity. Of course, since the experiment has been replicated again and again, and is considered by relativity and quantum theorists to be the foundational evidence for a universal constant for C, perhaps we shouldn't be too quick to dismiss those neanderthals. It either proved that, or that the earth is at rest.

<Edit> Oops! Cross-posted with the son-in-law! Sooo... The Bible says the sun stood still, not the Earth, which was already standing still. God's creation is even more complex than we have begun to understand. The article linked by Lynnie is excellent, BTW.

But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.


----------



## au5t1n

Mushroom said:


> But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.



I thought of you when I read the section in the article on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.


----------



## Mushroom

au5t1n said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I will say that I think this is important in that the currently 'accepted' models tend to impose a relativist and atomistic bent to one's worldview. If everything is moving and just a byproduct of collapsed wave function, then nothing is permanent and not much more than a dream.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought of you when I read the section in the article on the Copenhagen interpretation of QM.
Click to expand...

Me? The loudest trumpeter of "bad surface-level physics"? I can barely pronounce 'Copenhagen', much less wrap my feeble mind around anything to do with QM. That's why we lassoed you into the family...


----------



## MW

As my view from other threads has been raised, I think it is important to note that while discussion naturally gravitates to Joshua 10, it is more important for me to follow the cosmology of biblical revelation as a whole, which can only be understood as geocentric. The creation itself is geocentric; the poetic descriptions of the Psalms assume it; numerous phenomena in the histories and prophets only make sense on the basis of it; and there is of course nothing which suggests an alternate view. Moreover, science has done nothing to disprove it. I feel no necessity to re-evaluate or reformulate biblical revelation in the light of hypotheses which themselves are undergoing continual re-evaluation and reformulation. I also see no need to attempt to alter the Bible to make it look credible in the eyes of the scientific community. There are pertinent philosophical considerations which limit the scope of empirical science, and allow us to hold to the biblical view even when it conflicts with the observations of men. Our aim should always be to let the Bible speak for itself, and to accept its message regardless of how it is judged by others.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Would you elaborate further what you mean by all of these explanations being "self-referential"? And why does this and having nothing but a functional definition do not describe ultimate reality? Perhaps better still, is there a philosophical or theological work you could recommend that discusses this?



They are self-referential in the sense that there is no ultimate definition provided in the first instance which establishes a certain explanation for anything built upon it. The starting-point is itself based on induction, probability, and hypothesis. This can be overturned by later findings and result in a "revolution." Man has only peered so far into the nature of matter and motion. He speculates what lies beyond his ken, but he cannot be sure. If he cannot be sure he has no basis for ruling out other theories which may ultimately be proven correct. This means his own view is merely functional, and should not be presented as if it is foundational.


----------



## thbslawson

The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...

Uganda Equator "Coriolis effect" water draining show - YouTube


----------



## lynnie

_Visible light is higher-frequency electromagnetic waves, and it makes sense that it would behave much the same (aside from some particle behavior but I digress)._

Logan, I appreciated your post. You hit the central core of the discussion from the scientific point of view as I understand it. Does visible light behave like the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum ( geocentric theory) or does it not(relativity theory)?

The M-M experiment I quote was actually made to prove the "aether" in which waves move through space, but now with heliocentricity there is no aether...unless what they call dark matter is aether. Not sure. Geocentrists believe in aether, and refer to it as the firmament in which the heavenly bodies are set and the (radio, light, x-ray, etc) waves move. So was that the same experiment, to measure the speed of light? I am not sure, it has been a while since I devoted myself to reading a lot of material on this ( mid 1990s). Does any great scientist stop at one experiment 

One thing I do know, and I posted a link on one of the other threads here, is that in 2000 Time Magazine had Einstein as its person of the Century, and some where in the ( subscription only now) article, they mention his greatness in theorizing relativity, after a couple decades of science being stumped by the Michaelson-Morley experiment which showed the earth at rest ( using classical physics for measuring visible light). So somewhere along the line M-M did such an experiment.
_
The solar system looks and behaves heliocentric_

Well actually, as I pointed out before, it looks and behaves geocentric. Both models work. I have an old Atlantic Monthly filed away with a letter from a pilot about navigating according to fixed earth theory and how it works perfectly to fly a plane. 

It is better to read the really brilliant scientists on this. I am a novice. Also, the other phenomena that show the earth ( or at the very least, our solar system, or our galaxy) at the center of the entire universe are fascinating. 

Thanks again for your thoughtful scientific post. You summed up the basic scientific arguement well. If all the other waves on the electromagnetic spectrum can be measured with objects coming towards them, or away from them, by adding or decreasing the velocity of the other object moving, does visible light behave the same way? Yes- Michaelson/ Morley. No- Einstein. When you talk about science and study and illusion, the geocentrists would say that the relativity theory exception- for one small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum- in how waves are measured, lacks common sense and scientific validity.


I love this subject. The total thrill to me of biblical inerrancy and geocentricity, and light behaving the same same as radar and microwaves and so forth, is one of the most precious doctrines I know besides salvation itself.


----------



## lynnie

Thomas Lawson, you missed my post I see ( for which I will blame only myself). Many geocentrists believe at some point the earth was knocked into some rotation on the axis, that seems indisputable ( I think, I forget who says what). This is not the same as the subject of the earth orbiting the sun, or the sun orbiting the earth. Apples and oranges.


----------



## Afterthought

Logan said:


> I'm aware of this. I have a pretty solid grasp of coordinate systems and frames of reference, the main objection would be how things behave gravitationally. A geocentric model seems to assume that even though smaller masses orbit larger masses, it's really just an illusion, or it works that way with everything but the earth. It's possible, but it certainly seems unnatural! A person may certainly believe in an absolute coordinate system that centers on the earth. They may also believe that north is "up" and south is "down".


Since you understand the science then, you should also know that from its perspective there is nothing "illusory" or "unnatural" about it. "Ugly" maybe, "perverse" (to use the term my hostile witness used) perhaps, but not "unnatural." The only "wrong" thing from its perspective (given the qualifications I've already made in previous posts) would be taking a reference frame as absolute or global, making things unnecessarily complicated, and not being "reasonable" by simply taking the approximate inertial frames that show the earth's rotation and revolution around the sun.

Once we leave the realm of science and enter philosophy, that is where we might find it silly or arbitrary to believe north is "up," and whether we might prefer one frame or another, even as absolute in some way. However, that is also where we might acknowledge the possibility of knowledge we have not yet acquired in science that might cause our current science to find a way to view things the other way (in the manner I stated in one of my previous posts). And of course, in this realm of philosophy, criteria will need to be made to judge a particular belief silly and how to judge whether to prefer one frame or another and which one to prefer. And of course, careful guards will need to be placed around science, noticing its limited perspective and probabilistic account. We will need to decide how much science tells us gives us ultimate reality (and I don't think it does give us that), if anything, and how much of it gives reality at all (scientific realism vs non-realism).

Once we leave the realm of philosophy and enter theology, there we might see that some views are not actually silly or arbitrary but motivated by Scripture. In the case of the earth, we may find it to be a preferred frame. Is it an absolute frame? Maybe. Is it a preferred frame? Maybe. But that is to enter the realm of philosophy again; it is a way to understand how science's pronouncements _might _connect to what theology declares. In the realm of theology, we can be certain that whatever it says accords with ultimate reality, however that might fit in with our limited perspectives in philosophy, and even more limited perspectives in empirical science.


Anyway, all this science talk is besides the point, and I may partially be at fault for getting sidetracked (I don't recall the flow of the thread just now). It seems to me that the only reason to bring it up at this point in the thread is because a hermeneutic is presupposed that something so obviously true by science means that the contradictory found in Scripture must be an incorrect interpretation of Scripture. Why not from here on out discuss this hermeneutic and the exegetical arguments, since that is where the arguments of geocentrists tend to lie? (Well, admittedly some geocentrists base their position on science or denial of modern science, like some YECs seem to base theirs on science or denials of modern science, and that no doubt makes these discussions somewhat more confusing. Nevertheless, it seems the hermeneutical and exegetical questions are more pertinent to the changing and grounding of belief. And as Austin noted, this is the Puritanboard.) And while we're at it, we might discuss some philosophy concerning the role and abilities of science, since that is relevant to judging whether something is "obviously true" according to science, and science's connection to Scripture.


----------



## thbslawson

Why is it "Unbelievable"? I find it equally unbelievable that it's difficult to grasp such a simple fact.


----------



## thbslawson

au5t1n said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and *geosynchronous satellites* prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to start a thread on a controversial subject, at least take the time to read all of the responses before you come back with dogmatic assertions that betray a fundamental misunderstanding of general relativity, as well as the fact that you haven't been reading the discussion you started.
Click to expand...


Read it. Disagree with it. Find it convoluted and silly.


----------



## thbslawson

I should have left well enough alone and stayed out of the conversation.


----------



## thbslawson

au5t1n said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it "Unbelievable"? I find it equally unbelievable that it's difficult to grasp such a simple fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was unbelievable because we had just got through discussing the fact that the article Lynnie linked contained a detailed explanation of how geocentric models account for geosynchronous satellites, and I had just got through mentioning that folks are too prone to propping up bad examples like geosynchronous satellites without doing even a superficial amount of research into how the other side accounts for them, and you came along and mentioned them as incontrovertible proof. You have also now suggested several times that I (we) have "difficulty grasping" something that, actually, I grasp quite well, being a solid-state electronics graduate student with a strong quantum mechanics and thermodynamics background. Please read the article that Lynnie linked and spend some time reading up on general relativity before you make another post suggesting that geocentrists are stupid or willfully ignorant (and I'm not claiming to be one -- just trying to be fair and honest in handling the claims, as I wish all would do).
Click to expand...


Never called anyone ignorant or stupid. The fact that you have the kind of background you do is admirable, and I'm glad you're able to use the expertise and knowledge you have to support your position well.

The fact of the matter is, if we're going by studies, evidence, expertise and knowledge, there are far more solidly biblical scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. who can all easily and, I believe, definitively defend the concept that the earth is rotating. I find their arguments far superior.

The real issue is whether or not Scripture dictates the geocentric position, which I certainly do not think it does.


----------



## Mushroom

thbslawson said:


> Find it convoluted and silly.


Ain't nuthin' 'bout fizzics that ain't convoluted, brer...


----------



## Mushroom

thbslawson said:


> The fact of the matter is, if we're going by studies, evidence, expertise and knowledge, there are far more solidly biblical scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. who can all easily and, I believe, definitively defend the concept that the earth is rotating.


Argumentum ad verecundiam


----------



## SRoper

One Little Nail said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> Robert, what would happen if Michelson-Morley was performed on the Moon? You would predict that it would show a different result than on the Earth. I predict it would show the same result as on Earth (and thus confirm relativity). Seems simple enough to test.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't their experiment split light & have it travel in 2 diferent directions by mirrors in a cube shape apparatus which then
> met back up, and because the 2 lights travelled back to this point at the same time didn't it prove that the earth didnt move, on the moon it would show a difference when the 2 light sources merged, a noticeable lag would be seen on 1 light, due to the moons movement.
Click to expand...




lynnie said:


> Both geocentric models and heliocentric models work for our observations of the solar system. So it really comes down to classic physics for light waves, or relativity.



This isn't true. Just look at the discussion I had with Robert about doing M-M on the Moon. I predict that we would get the exact same result as on the Earth while Robert predicts that the experiment would show the Moon is in motion. The two systems are irreconcilable. They both might be wrong, but they both can't be right.

So would it make sense to spend the money to do this experiment and find out who is right? Not at all, because geocentrism doesn't care about scientific predictions. If the experiment showed something that contradicted their predictions, no problem! They have an ad-hoc explanation for it. This is why pointing to Foucault's pendulum, paralax, red-shift, etc. is a pointless exercise. It just shows the geocentrist that you haven't done your homework by reading the relevant geocentrist literature. They have seen that argument before and have carefully concocted an explanation that fits the facts. None of these explanations explain anything beyond the problem in question, as they aren't based on any overarching theory. They merely exist to avoid the particular challenge at hand. This is why geocentrism has zero cash value in science and engineering. While scientists and engineers are actually out doing things based on the predictions of modern physics, geocentrists are left behind cleaning up as each engineering achievement poses new problems that need to be explained according to their paradigm.

Take the mere existence of geostationary satellites. We are able to put a satellite into geostationary orbit based on applying very simple formulas. It's not rocket science, or rather it's simple rocket science using nothing more than algebra and first-year physics.

In these formulas:
let m be the mass of the satellite,
let M be the mass of the Earth,
let r be the distance from the center of the Earth to the satellite,
let w be the angular speed of the satellite, and
let G be the gravitational constant.





(I'm not sure if there is a way to get the image full size inline with the text.)

The centripetal force to keep an object in motion around a central point is given in (1). Imagine swinging a ball on a string around your head. You need to continually apply a force on that string to keep the ball circling your head. If you didn't (say you let go of the string) the ball would continue on a straight line path. This is the same with satellites. They need a force to keep them in orbit or else they would go shooting off into space. That force is gravity.

The force due to gravity is given by (2). Since this is the force we are going to use to keep the satellite in orbit it must be equal to the centripetal force in (1). This gives us (3). We multiply each side by r^2/(mw^2) to get (4).

Next we substitute the values for M and G (5.9736 × 10^24 kg and 6.67428 × 10^−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2, respectively). Since we want the satellite to be geostationary, we want it to stay above the same spot over the earth. Now this is where it gets interesting. According to the heliocentric model, the Earth is rotating and is in turn revolving around the Sun. We would put in w = 2pi/T, where T is the orbital period or 86,164 seconds (the length of a sidereal day). That gives us w = 7.2921 × 10^−5 rad/s.

Substitute the values for M, G, and w into (4) and we are left with (5). Take the cubed root of both sides and we have r = 42,168 km. This is the distance from the satellite to the center of the Earth. To get the height above the Earth we would just subtract the radius of the Earth. Lo and behold, if we put a satellite at that height it is geostationary.

Did you notice that we had to enter in a value for w that took into account the Earth's rotation? What would we do if the geocentric model was correct? The Earth wouldn't rotate, so w = 0. If we drop that into (4) the distance required would be infinite! But we know geostationary satellites are about 42,000 km away from the center of the Earth. How do geocentrists explain this? Well I'll let you check out Falsifying the Geosynchronous Satellite Concept.

Did you see what they did? They had to invent a magical force that is counteracting the force of gravity. They call it an electromagnetic force, but there is no discussion of the required magnetic permeability of the satellite, so it might as well be magic that only acts on satellites in geostationary orbit. There is no way that geocentrists could have known at which altitude a satellite would be geostationary. They had to make up an explanation after the fact. However, real scientists and engineers did calculations like I did assuming a heliocentric model and got the job done.

One last thing. I see a lot of references that reference frames are arbitrary and that while choosing a heliocentric model might be useful for certain things, it doesn't prove anything one way or another. This is strictly true, but we must be careful. If you lived in a rotor amusement park ride, you may say that your choice of reference frame is just as good as someone else's who lived outside the rotor--he and everything else could just be orbiting you at high speed. However, why is it that you experience a force that you might call centrifugal force that is alien to the observer outside? He doesn't feel any force that keeps him orbiting around you. Is the choice of reference frame really arbitrary, or is there a reality to your rotation as described by the outsider?


----------



## Mushroom

Models, Scott. Models that work, and are the simplest yet found, but still just models. Occam's Razor does not always apply across the board in physics, as you well know from your 1st year HS physics class.

You said:


SRoper said:


> If the experiment showed something that contradicted their predictions, no problem!


And the same could be said of heliocentrists, which is exactly what Einstein did with the M-M experiment results in setting off in the direction that you now evidently consider set in stone.


----------



## RamistThomist

thbslawson said:


> The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...
> 
> Uganda Equator "Coriolis effect" water draining show - YouTube



That is neat!


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> They are self-referential in the sense that there is no ultimate definition provided in the first instance which establishes a certain explanation for anything built upon it. The starting-point is itself based on induction, probability, and hypothesis. This can be overturned by later findings and result in a "revolution." Man has only peered so far into the nature of matter and motion. He speculates what lies beyond his ken, but he cannot be sure. If he cannot be sure he has no basis for ruling out other theories which may ultimately be proven correct. This means his own view is merely functional, and should not be presented as if it is foundational.


Thank you. To make sure I understand, by no "ultimate definition," do you mean they have no definition that relates to ultimate reality? If so, that seems to beg the question as to whether science gives us ultimate reality, since that was what was being demonstrated? Or do you just mean that all definitions in science are built on particulars?




SRoper said:


> One last thing. I see a lot of references that reference frames are arbitrary and that while choosing a heliocentric model might be useful for certain things, it doesn't prove anything one way or another. *This is strictly true*, but we must be careful. If you lived in a rotor amusement park ride, you may say that your choice of reference frame is just as good as someone else's who lived outside the rotor--he and everything else could just be orbiting you at high speed. However, why is it that you experience a force that you might call centrifugal force that is alien to the observer outside? He doesn't feel any force that keeps him orbiting around you. Is the choice of reference frame really arbitrary, or is there a reality to your rotation as described by the outsider?


The bold is all that is needed. Well, at least it's all that is needed for those geocentrists who hold it as a Scriptural--not scientific--view, have no problem with science giving its own perspective on the matter, and see no necessary reason to build a scientific theory based on their Scripturally derived views. It's tricky that there is more than one sort of geocentric position being advocated. I wonder if their differing perspectives might actually parallel the different views of YEC.

And the last part of the sentence and rest of the paragraph is precisely why it is important to qualify what is said with respect to relativity because (I at least have seen) those who advocate geocentrism not take those considerations into account when they attempt to demonstrate their view does not contradict science (some though admit they are fully Machian). Non-uniform acceleration and especially rotation are tricky things in relativity, and I hope I never actually said choosing a frame is "arbitrary" since that doesn't quite capture what is the actual case. From what I've read, there seems to be a bit of disagreement concerning these matters; some I've seen say that in general relativity frames are coordinate systems and physics is geometry, and so presumably not only the math but the physics works out; others I've seen will point out that acceleration and rotation are absolute in relativity; others I've seen will say that fictitious forces are on the same level as real forces in general relativity (by "others," I mean university professors, lecture notes, and textbooks); and that philosophical article seems to suggest yet another view of the matter. I hope I'll have time to try asking a geocentrist who is a scientist questions about that some time, and I'm tempted to just email a professor at my school to get these things sorted out properly; the apparent disagreements might actually harmonize in some way (and I have my suspicions as to which phrases are actually saying the same thing).


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> Thank you. To make sure I understand, by no "ultimate definition," do you mean they have no definition that relates to ultimate reality? If so, that seems to beg the question as to whether science gives us ultimate reality, since that was what was being demonstrated? Or do you just mean that all definitions in science are built on particulars?



Is it begging the question to say that a part indicates something about the whole? If things are only identified by their qualities, and the essence of things can never be reached, it is obvious that science cannot disprove biblical revelation about the essence of things. Science can only tell us that such statements cannot be empirically verified.


----------



## lynnie

"* What would we do if the geocentric model was correct? The Earth wouldn't rotate, so w = 0." 

"The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so*"

_LOTS OF GEOCENTRISTS BELIEVE THE EARTH ROTATES ON ITS AXIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WILL YOU STOP MIXING UP TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS????? PLEASE???????_

I just posted about this. Obviously you didn't bother to read it.

Geocentricity is the model of the solar system with the sun orbiting around the earth, and the other planets orbiting around the sun. Heliocentricity is the model where the planets all orbit the sun. 

Some geocentrists think that at a certain time ( the fall, the flood) events happened that triggered some rotation of the earth, originally created with no movement. 

Rotation of the earth on its axis is not necessarily at odds with geocentricity. Some of them hold to an earth fully at perfect rest, and some to a rotating earth.

TWO SUBJECTS: ROTATION OF THE EARTH ON AN AXIS, ORBITALS OF THE SUN AROUND EARTH OR EARTH AROUND SUN. TWO SUBJECTS.

If you want to talk about the earth rotating, please understand that such a position is not limited to heliocentrists. Geocentrists have some differences and many believe in rotation of the earth. Thank you.


----------



## VictorBravo

thbslawson said:


> The fact of the matter is, if we're going by studies, evidence, expertise and knowledge, there are far more solidly biblical scientists, physicists, mathematicians, etc. who can all easily and, I believe, definitively defend the concept that the earth is rotating.



That's the main issue, isn't it? How to treat empirical observation.

Thomas, I am fairly well versed in the scientific method. I have been steeped in physics since I was around 6 years old. I figured I had a fairly firm grasp about the various discovered laws of nature. Indeed, they are reliable, and as I said earlier, at times elegant.

But they are only summaries of observations. They don't actually identify what is going on. Because God created his universe to be orderly, they do well at predicting positions of heavenly bodies. I wouldn't gainsay that for a minute. Astrophysics is amazing.

But do we really know what gravity is? Do we really know what happens when we observe momentum? No--we take it as a given. We observe objects move a certain way, and we come up with formulas (That's why we say things like 'Let G=the force of attraction between body A and body B).

But that force is just a way of saying that under such and such circumstances, body A tends to move toward body B. We could just as easily say that God is pushing them together by his Word, and he always does this when we look at such things--and our laws of nature could not disprove this statement at all.

Because, at its most basic level, science starts out with a few suppositions and goals:

Suppostion: the universe is orderly. (We have no actual proof of this, other than Scripture. Science only has empirical observations that seem to confirm it.)

Supposition: in a given model, repeated consistent observations increase the likelihood that our model is reliable for (for what?) for making future predictions. Nothing more. The model does not say what is really happening.

Initial goal of science: to leave out the supernatural, not to address it. (Which of course, means that it has nothing to say about it).

Primary goal of science: to systematize observations to allow for predictive observations. Again, nothing more. Science allows for predictions, but does not do anything but describe what is observed.

So, if I'm going to launch a satellite for the purpose of relaying communications, certainly I would use the natural laws because they are pretty reliable predictors of physical behavior.

But if Matthew Winzer or Brad, or even you, were to ask me what keeps that satellite up in space, I'd respond: it is the hand of God, maintaining his universe according to his decree.

And, as an aside, following Matthew's observation, I'd say that Scripture definitely speaks about a geocentric universe. It does not address astrophysics in detail, but it does tell us God's focus: In the beginning God created heaven and Earth.

Two basic things. Heaven and Earth. After that, almost all the focus of Scripture is on Earth and, even more to the point, on Man. I take it that divine revelation tells us that God's focus is uniquely on this speck some call "geo."

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## thbslawson




----------



## VictorBravo

thbslawson said:


>



Sorry, I was trying to be thoughtful and respectful.


----------



## lynnie

QUESTION: 

Here are some waves on the electromagnetic spectrum, not necessarily in order:

AM Radio
FM Radio
(RADAR is also radio waves)
TV
Cell phone
Wireless networking
Ham radio
Microwaves
Infared light
Visible to human eye light
Ultraviolet light 
X rays
Gamma rays

Can you understand that if all the waves behave a certain way, and experiments are done with visible light that give a certain result, and after a couple decades Einstein says that visible light does not behave like all the other waves on the electromagnetic spectrum......

......ultimately, it is a matter of faith and unprovable assumptions? Some scientists believe visible light behaves like all the other electromagnetic waves?

What is a greater leap of faith- to separate out the behavior of visible light waves with relativity theory, or to say that the earth is at the center of the solar system and universe? Don't both positions require a certain "faith" ?

I don't understand why Christian heliocentrists have such a hard time with geocentrists. Even if they don't agree, I'd think they'd accept it as a viable position.


----------



## thbslawson

VictorBravo said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I was trying to be thoughtful and respectful.
Click to expand...


No, no, no. I hit post apparently after you had posted and didn't see what you had written. Yes, your post was very thoughtful and respectful. Thank you. My head bang was just over the whole thing in general. Simply a timing issue.


----------



## CharlieJ

Lynnie, perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I think the article you posted argued that the earth does not rotate. The quote is below.


3) It is often objected that if geocentricity were true, and the rotating heavens were dragging Foucault pendula and weather systems around, why doesn't that force pull on the earth itself and drag it along, causing it to eventually rotate in sync with the heavens? It appears that this straightforward application of torque to the earth should cause it to rotate in sum, but this turns out to be an oversimplification.....

However, in the case of a rotating firmament, all the particles are rotating in the same direction, with the angular velocity common to the entire firmament. The equatorial inertial drag is in the opposite direction as that acting near the poles. Using calculus, one integrates the effect from the center of the Earth outward in infinitesimal shells, showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place, the resulting inertial shear being distributed throughout the Earth's internal volume. It could be demonstrated that were the Earth to be pushed out of its “station keeping” position, the uneven force distribution would return it to its equilibrium state. Intriguingly, the significance of these internal forces on seismic stress, plate tectonics, and the earth's magnetic field may prove central, if so be that these postulates survive the inevitable peer review to come.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> Is it begging the question to say that a part indicates something about the whole? If things are only identified by their qualities, and the essence of things can never be reached, it is obvious that science cannot disprove biblical revelation about the essence of things. Science can only tell us that such statements cannot be empirically verified.


Thanks, I may see what you are getting at now. I understand what you mean by "qualities" and "essence," but I wonder whether this is like Kant's view of phenomena and noumena (or if you're familiar with him, Duhem's similar appropriation of that terminology) applied to empirical science? And if not, how do they differ?

Maybe when I get some more time, I'll try to formulate a few interpretive questions concerning geocentrism that I still have if no one else asks them first.


----------



## lynnie

Charlie, like I said, geocentrists do not all agree. Bowden postulates some rotation based on the evidence. 

_showing that the Earth is in fact locked in place_( Selbrede)...I think some would say it is pinned in place but can spin on that pin. The quote seems more about the effect of the rotating firmament ( aether, heavens, universe) on a central mass. I could be misreading it. 

I do not have a degree in astro physics so I really can't argue if it is at rest, or pinned in the center spot with some spin on the axis. I don't see that it really matters to the main subject, which is experimental evidence showing that six months apart, in theory, the earth racing toward a star or away from a star, the velocity of light stays constant. Einstein accepted that result and did not attribute it to inferior technology or an inability to measure true light speed. Instead, he postulated relativity for visible light. 

It does not make him wrong and geocentricity right, but it is a separate matter from the earth spinning on an axis. Whether it spins or not, the question is, is it hurling through space around the sun in a fixed orbit, or is the sun spinning around the earth? Since both models work, the only real claim to heliocentricity is that it is a simpler model. But then you face the fact that your model of the electromagnetic spectrum and how waves behave is simpler with geocentricity.

The thing that pretty much makes people close off is the universe rotating daily around the earth as well. A created sphere in God's hands ( He marks off the heavens with the span of his hand- Isaiah 40). Most Christians I know will not even consider the possibility that God can measure the universe with his hand, anthropomorphicly speaking, and spin it daily. The universe is just too big for God to do that. The PhD geo guys have all kinds of stuff about it, including that the speed of light is not a limit for rotation, and some ( all?) of them think the universe isn't as big as modern science claims it to be, but honestly I am way over my head if I even tried to paraphrase so I won't try. But that is where the geocentrists generally lose people. Once you get past the solar system into the starry heavens orbiting the earth daily as well as the sun, they look at you like you just grew another eyeball or broke out in leprosy and can't wait to get away from such a freak.


----------



## bookslover

thbslawson said:


> The real issue is whether or not Scripture dictates the geocentric position, which I certainly do not think it does.



I feel your pain, brother.

The earth spins on its axis, and the earth spins around the sun. This is not difficult.

If the earth didn't rotate on its axis (while rotating around the sun), one side of the planet would experience perpetual daylight, and the other would have perpetual darkness.


----------



## One Little Nail

thbslawson said:


> The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...



Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.

If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!

how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth? 

In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not rotate. 
In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not orbit the Sun. 
Hence, in GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the motions we see are real.

In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are continually spinning at up to 1,039 mph about an axis, yet this is supposedly indiscernible. 
In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are hurtling around the Sun at 41.89x the muzzle velocity of an AK-47, yet this is supposedly indiscernible. 
Hence, in HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, our perceived lack of motion is unreal and those motions that are real we cannot perceive. taken from http://www.realityreviewed.com/Geocentrism.htm


these photos show that stars rotate around a stationary point,a star i think,in the nights sky, they appear as streaks in timelapse photography, the further they are from the centrepoint the longer the streak that the star leaves which would
indicate that some stars travel a larger orbit at greater speed, if the Earth rotated around on its axis in a 24 hour period stars would appear as a single streak across the nights sky,would they not?


----------



## Edward

lynnie said:


> LOTS OF GEOCENTRISTS BELIEVE THE EARTH ROTATES ON ITS AXIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WILL YOU STOP MIXING UP TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS????? PLEASE???????
> 
> I just posted about this. Obviously you didn't bother to read it.



From this thread, that appears to be the minority position for geocentrism. And the two concepts appear to be integral to many folks. So I'm not sure your accusation is well founded. 



One Little Nail said:


> In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not rotate.
> In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not orbit the Sun.


----------



## Logan

One Little Nail said:


> Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.
> 
> If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!
> 
> how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?



Robert, lest you assume these are good arguments, let me assure you that they are not.


----------



## Tirian

Check out this website for a demonstration of the physical model of a geocentric cosmology: http://staticearth.net/coper.html

If you click on Controllable Demonstration you can set the earth to be the reference point.


----------



## Logan

I do have a genuine question for the geocentrists who come to this position exegetically. 

If one assumes a geocentric system in which the sun (and everything else) orbits the earth and the earth is stationary, is there no problem posed by the speeds required?
If the sun is 150 million km from the earth, it would have to travel 940 x 10^9 meters per day to complete its orbit (3.6% the speed of light). So far so good, but Pluto is 7.5 x 10^12 meters away from earth, so it has to complete its circle of the earth at speeds of 1.8 times the speed of light. The nearest star at 4.2 light years away has to complete its orbit of the earth at speeds of 9776 times the speed of light. Of course it gets worse the farther out you go, as the entire universe seemingly has to orbit the earth within 24 hours?

But maybe in a geocentric worldview speed doesn't have a limit since God doesn't? I'm sincerely asking.

The simpler way is to say well, the earth is stationary but it also rotates on its axis. As far as I know though, this poses an "exegetical" problem for those who come to geocentrism through passages such as Joshua 10, where it says that the "sun stopped". 

If the earth is stationary and the sun usually moves but was stopped, we get the sun standing still.
If the earth is spinning then it really was the earth that stopped and not the sun (something I think Armourbearer rejects).

So it seems exegetically that the earth cannot be spinning. One other option is that there is some combination of earth spinning and sun moving, and that while God really stopped the sun from moving, He also stopped the earth from spinning, just without saying so. Is there some other option I've not considered?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Logan

au5t1n said:


> Logan, the way a geocentrist would answer your question would be to point out that it is the aether, which has Planck density, that is rotating that fast, carrying the sun and everything else with it. The objects themselves are not moving faster than the speed of light with respect to the aether.



I saw this in relation to the geosynchronous satellites (basically saying that they get "swept around" the earth by this aether, along with everything else). If that were the case and this "current" is so powerful, then what about satellites that are not geosynchronous? Say satellites with polar orbits? If this aether sweeping everything were true, would not these orbits be impossible or wouldn't they become increasingly elongated until they are going the same direction as the rest of the universe?


----------



## VictorBravo

thbslawson said:


> The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...
> 
> Uganda Equator "Coriolis effect" water draining show - YouTube



Another aside, in the interest of accuracy, the Coriolis effect in drains idea doesn't pan out. It's a gimmick for tourists, although I have no doubt people believe it in good faith.

snopes.com: Coriolis Force Effect on Drains

HowStuffWorks "The Coriolis Effect: Myths and Misconceptions"

This is one thing I experimented on some 30 years ago: supposedly drains in the northern hemisphere drains counterclockwise; in the southern hemisphere they drain clockwise.

Actual observation over many different drainings shows that this is not true. The direction of spinning (in a circular drain) is dependent on which direction, no matter how slight, the water in a basin is spinning before draining.


----------



## thbslawson

One Little Nail said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth rotates. There is absolutely positively no question about this. It cannot NOT be so. The Coriolis effect and geosynchronous satellites prove this. Why is this so hard to believe? Why is this seen as such a threat to Biblical truth? If the earth didn't spin, this couldn't happen...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.
> 
> If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!
> 
> how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?
> 
> In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not rotate.
> In GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the World does not orbit the Sun.
> Hence, in GEOSTATIONARY COSMOLOGY, the motions we see are real.
> 
> In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are continually spinning at up to 1,039 mph about an axis, yet this is supposedly indiscernible.
> In HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, we are hurtling around the Sun at 41.89x the muzzle velocity of an AK-47, yet this is supposedly indiscernible.
> Hence, in HELIOCENTRIC COSMOLOGY, our perceived lack of motion is unreal and those motions that are real we cannot perceive. taken from Introduction to Geocentrism
> 
> 
> these photos show that stars rotate around a stationary point,a star i think,in the nights sky, they appear as streaks in timelapse photography, the further they are from the centrepoint the longer the streak that the star leaves which would
> indicate that some stars travel a larger orbit at greater speed, if the Earth rotated around on its axis in a 24 hour period stars would appear as a single streak across the nights sky,would they not?
Click to expand...


Next time you're on a plane traveling at 1000kph stand up in the aisle. You're not swept off your feet are you? Why? Because you're inside of a pressurized cabin (an atmosphere) and the plane is already moving. Let that plane accelerate to 5000kph if it could go that fast and the exact same thing could happen, you could stand up with no problem. Basic.

Now take a baseball bat or some kind of stick. Stand it on the ground and lean over putting your forehead on it. Spin around but keep the bat or stick in the same place. Same effect as the North Star.

So yes, common sense leads me to the same conclusion. The earth is spinning.


----------



## Logan

au5t1n said:


> I haven't studied their model in exhaustive detail yet, but basically from an observational standpoint, a revolving aether would have the same effects as a rotating earth. That is why the two systems are mathematically identical. It is perfectly possible that for some calculations a heliocentric model is simpler and in some a geocentric model is simpler.



I don't think that's quite the question I asked. Basically, a satellite in geosynchronous orbit is seemingly explained as being _with_ the current of this moving aether. However, a satellite in polar orbit would be going perpendicular to this supposed aether. 

Isn't that like saying a stick floating down the river is swept by the current at the same speed of the current, while a stick floating from one bank to the other is unaffected by the current? How is that explained?

I've read through a summary of the Michelson-Morley experiment now (which I knew before primarily for its calculations on the speed of light) and I'm surprised at the way it's being referenced in this thread. It was not used for geocentrism, it was used to see if this "aether" was affected by mass. The experiment seemed to support "complete aether dragging" which is the assumption that aether is at rest in free space but is completely dragged along by masses so that it moves at the same speed a mass does. However, it only seemed to support this by default: because it disproved the other theory, that of partial-aether dragging. They expected that if the aether was moving at a different speed than the mass (earth) then light which traveled in the direction of earth would lose speed while light traveling against the earth would gain speed. They didn't observe this so concluded that if there is aether, it is traveling the same speed as the earth through space. Perhaps a geocentrist would say that's because the aether isn't moving at all on the earth? The same phenomenon is explained by general relativity (source is moving at the same speed as the receiver), sort of like saying that within a moving vehicle, a person's voice does not have a Doppler shift if the speaker is behind the driver.


----------



## Mushroom

Yes, Logan, those were the intents of M-M in carrying out the experiment. But it's results had a profound effect on non-aethereal theories, since it seemed to show that the Earth was stationary. Einstein set about determining a model wherein M-M would work in those models, and came up with the concept of a universal constant speed for the visible spectrum of electromagnetic radiation we call light. We call those the Special and General Theories of Relativity.

You do understand that general relativity states that movement of the source has NO effect on the speed of light, right?


----------



## Afterthought

Logan said:


> If one assumes a geocentric system in which the sun (and everything else) orbits the earth and the earth is stationary, is there no problem posed by the speeds required?


I don't see how this is a question of exegesis. It seems rather to ask how does science relate to what is exegeted. And in particular, it seems to object to exegetical geocentrism by saying that science conflicts with a scientific geocentrism and so no connection can be made to what is exegeted. I'll leave it to those who know how to do exegesis better to answer your question, but it does seem to me to not be an exegetical question, and that such scientific details would be of no concern to what is exegeted. And also that the exegetical position would hold (and is independent of science enough) even if one had to say, "I don't know how this all works out with scientific details, observations, etc." at some point (like eventually happens with YEC)....unless there is some hermeneutic that would change that, in which case the hermeneutic would need to be argued for. So it seems to me.

But to answer your scientific concern from the perspective of geocentrists who use relativity, I'm fairly sure that "faster than c" is allowed in rotating reference frames. I don't have time to look into it again though, so maybe you could or another here can confirm that. I think this page might have something on it: The Rigid Rotating Disk in Relativity Or this page: Faster Than Light But I would rather find actual lecture notes or a textbook (or have a conversation with a university professor) in order to be sure. I do recall seeing a concession to geocentrists somewhere on the internet that the "faster than c" objection doesn't hold, but I don't remember where.



For those who seem to be saying only visible light travels at c as a universal constant (without trying to get sidetracked yet again in an argument about science), it should be noted that (when I was taught special relativity, anyway), (1) c referred to the speed of light in a vacuum, and (2) "light" referred to everything in the E&M spectrum, not just visible light (i.e., I was taught that all light traveled at c in a vacuum as a universal constant, not just visible light).


----------



## CharlieJ

The argument regarding geosynchronous satellites is not just an issue of force (what's holding it up?) but of time. GPS satellites carry clocks calibrated based on calculations from both general and special relativity. If these calculations were wrong, GPS satellites would be so inaccurate as to be entirely useless. I cannot think of any non-relativistic theory that would explain why precise calculations from both relativistic theories work.

Error analysis for the Global Positioning System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Loopie

au5t1n said:


> It is frustrating when folks make dogmatic pronouncements in threads like this without spending even five minutes studying the opposing position. Just five minutes reading up on geocentrism would have led you to the answer to this question. Whether geocentrism is right or wrong, it _does_ account for geosynchronous satellites. In fact, that specific issue is addressed very thoroughly in the article that Lynnie linked above.
> 
> I find it odd that more time is spent on surface-level physics (and usually bad surface-level physics at that) in these threads than on biblical interpretation, which is the more appropriate field of discussion for the Puritanboard.




Well, I appreciate your candor, but I have indeed 'researched' the opposing side. Consider the following article by Dr. Neville Jones in 2007, who demonstrated that a non-rotating earth cannot account for geosynchronous orbits. Again, satellites today are being sent into space with the assumption of a rotating earth, and that assumption is working. They are accounting for the earth's rotation in the calculation of what distance they should make the satellites orbit. And it works. If the non-rotating earth model was correct, the satellite orbit would be unstable, and it would either crash to earth or fly off into deep space.

I recommend you take a look at the article: http://www.realityreviewed.com/geosat.pdf

On a side note, I understand that you can hold to geocentrism while ALSO believing that the earth rotates. My contention is that IF you believe the earth rotates (regardless of the 'centric' model you hold to), that 'rotation' IS going to contribute to the appearance of the sun 'moving across' the sky. So in the situation regarding Joshua, when God made the sun stand still, he ALSO would have stopped or reduced the rotation of the earth. Therefore, it is true in SOME sense that the language used in Joshua is observational. Essentially, if you hold to geocentrism AND that the earth rotates, the sun 'stopping' in the sky involves BOTH the sun actually stopping its movement AND the earth stopping its rotation. If you wish to say that ONLY the sun stopped moving (in an astronomical sense), then you cannot hold to a rotating earth model, because if the earth rotated even just a little bit, the sun would still 'appear' to be moving.

Anyways, I want to point out that I am not trying to cause dissension or step on any toes. I am simply trying to have a good, honest conversation about these matters. I applaud all brothers and sisters, whether heliocentric or geocentric, in allowing Scripture to drive our understanding of the universe.


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> Yes, Logan, those were the intents of M-M in carrying out the experiment. But it's results had a profound effect on non-aethereal theories, since it seemed to show that the Earth was stationary.



No, it showed that an _assumed_ aether does not move relative to the earth. It had no bearing one way or the other on whether the earth was stationary. It had no bearing one way or the other on whether there was any aether. What it did show was given an assumption of aether, two conclusions could be drawn: aether is stationary and thus the earth is, or aether moves at the same rate as the earth. Both had problems which led to the development of alternative theories.



Mushroom said:


> You do understand that general relativity states that movement of the source has NO effect on the speed of light, right?



Statements like this come off as unnecessarily condescending.


----------



## thbslawson

I really don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. Perhaps it's time we all move on. Just saying.


----------



## Logan

thbslawson said:


> I really don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. Perhaps it's time we all move on. Just saying.



I agree. I have been somewhat dismayed to find in the "literature" (very little has any kind of discussion of the physics) and even here on the board that there is no general consensus, no consistency. On the one side you have the massive experimentation and engineering and consensus of the last 100+ years, and we've moved forward based on those predictions in remarkable ways.

On the other hand, I see a few individuals, a few websites, each with a different explanation. Is there aether, is there not? Does the earth spin, does it not? Is relativity shown to be true or is it explained away? Does visible light alone behave relativistically or travel at different speeds than the rest of the electromagnetic spectrum? Is faster than light movement possible or not? Do satellites follow Newtonian physics or are they "buoyed" up by this aether (which they apparently must if the earth is not rotating)? Is the cosmos a big crystal sphere or not? All of which appears to be conjecture. It may be right, but which one I would have no clue, nor do geocentrists themselves apparently agree.

I'm also disappointed by what appear to be explanations after the fact. Where are the predictions? Where are the results? Would certain schools of geocentrists have been able to put a satellite in geostationary orbit? No. They would have no idea at what height to place it to perfectly balance the "pull" of the cosmos, the "buoyancy" of the aether, and the gravitational pull of the earth. Yet after someone using a standard model does it, everything is refitted to "show" that geocentrism works too. 

I should probably have not become involved but I definitely intend to withdraw. Beware that others find this thread quite laughable (though that isn't to say what the world thinks should influence us)


----------



## lynnie

Logan- for what it is worth, in the Time magazine Jan 2000 article about Einstein, Man of the Century, they refer to M-M, and Einstein's genius in solving a mystery that appeared to show the earth at rest. Assuming Time understood Einstein correctly, A.E. himself saw M-M as giving geocentric results based on the pre- relativity physics of the time.

Re predictions, modern astronomy has concluded there must be far more mass than we can see to explain the universe. Hence dark matter. We would call it the firmament.


----------



## SRoper

lynnie said:


> Rotation of the earth on its axis is not necessarily at odds with geocentricity. Some of them hold to an earth fully at perfect rest, and some to a rotating earth.



You are right that I did not address every variation of geocentrism. I thought my post was already getting quite long. However, I did implicitly address your preferred version and will now address it explicitly.

You will notice that in determining w I said the orbital period is "86,164 seconds (the length of a sidereal day)." A sidereal day is shorter than the length of a solar day as it takes into account the revolution of the Earth around the Sun. You deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so you would put the length of a solar day (60 s/min *60 min/hr*24 hr = 86,400 s) in for the orbital period. I will leave the derivation of r with this new orbital period as an exercise for the reader, but you will find it is off by an order of 100 km, enough for the satellite to no longer be geostationary.



au5t1n said:


> Now you have resorted to casting aspersions on men's character.



I've done nothing of the sort. When you don't make any predictions you can just make it up as you go along. It has nothing to do with character and everything to do with methodology.



au5t1n said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of these explanations explain anything beyond the problem in question, as they aren't based on any overarching theory. They merely exist to avoid the particular challenge at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an odd claim since the geocentrist hypothesis of a Planck aether actually purports to provide a unifying theory of gravity, QM, relativity, and electromagnetism. That does not mean their model is correct, but it does mean they are, in fact, using an overarching theory rather than bits and pieces.
> 
> 
> 
> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice that we had to enter in a value for w that took into account the Earth's rotation? What would we do if the geocentric model was correct? The Earth wouldn't rotate, so w = 0. If we drop that into (4) the distance required would be infinite!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the value would not be zero; it would be determined by accounting for the rotation of the aether with Planck density. Actually, it would be the same value because w ("omega") is a rotational velocy, which is equal for the universe around the earth as it is for the rotation of the earth. All this suffices to say that the calculation for a geosynchronous satellite is not only equally simple in a geocentric model, but rather it is, in fact, identical in every way.
Click to expand...


I'm not following. From the geocentric position there is no reason for there to be an omega at all (and you are right about the convention--I just used "w" because it is easier to type). According to them a geostationary satellite isn't spinning around anything--it just levitates in the sky. There would have to be a completely different set of equations. Perhaps on one side you would have the force of gravity (or whatever they substitute since many of them seem to reject Newton's law of gravitation), and on the other side you would have another force to directly counteract it. Then you would have to explain why this force only acts this way at that altitude but at other altitudes the satellites have to move to stay in the sky.

Imagine again a boy with a ball on a string. If the boy spins around the ball will pull the string taut and the ball will continue to face the same side as the boy. If the boy is not spinning, something else is going to have to take the place of the centripetal force in order to keep the ball in place. Maybe the ball is magnetic and you have a giant magnet pulling it out, but you have to substitute something with a new set of equations.



Mushroom said:


> Models, Scott. Models that work, and are the simplest yet found, but still just models. Occam's Razor does not always apply across the board in physics, as you well know from your 1st year HS physics class.



I agree that if it was just a matter of "you have your model, I have my model" we could just move on. However one model got a man on the Moon. The other, well, I don't even believe it is properly called a model because it makes no predictions. We aren't dealing with two models; we are dealing with a model on one hand and smoke and mirrors on the other.

If you think I'm wrong, show me--I'd love to be proven wrong about this. I hear that both models will get to the same result. When we ask for proof we are given a link with a lot of big words but no derivations. I have already shown how we know where to put a geostationary satellite with my model. Let's see how you do it with yours. I hear that it is more complicated. Fine. What are we talking about? Matrix transformations? Vector calculus? I'm not the best mathematician, but I will try to follow. What I'm asking is for you guys to show your work. If one of my professors asked me to derive the altitude of a geostationary satellite and I wrote down, "Planck density, dragging of inertial frames, gravimagneto effect, r = 42,168 km," I'd get a big fat zero.


----------



## lynnie

Re rotation-

Both Genesis and Psalm 104 refer to the moon appointed to mark seasons. You have to admit that it does not work well. The Jews occasionally had to add an entire extra month; we have months out of sync with the moon. 

For that reason I have read theories about 12 months, 30 days each, 360 days, and a perfect lunar calendar at creation. Those geocentrists ( and maybe some helios?) think that something happened - the earth was shaken, it reeled, etc. Maybe at the fall, probably at the flood, but enough to destroy the perfect lunar calendar.

I read something secular a while back about ancient carvings that claimed there was a base 10 circle with If I recall correctly 400 degrees and faster rotation-400 days annually If I recall correctly- and the earth has slowed down. It might have been the lunatic fringe ( well, even more lunatic than people think geos are, ha) 

The point is, among the creationist community holding to a perfect creation that decayed at the fall, there are people that hold to a perfectly created lunar calendar. Hence the geocentrists that admit to some "spin" on an earth at the center. Just trying to explain the thinking, For what it's worth. Even if they are a minority, it does not change the basic geocentric theory in other respects.


----------



## lynnie

Geocentricity

If anybody is interested in this subject, there appear to be some interesting articled here. In the 90s I read books and saw a video so I haven't read much online. 

In skimming one article, it appears that at least some geocentrists are adopting the plasma model of the universe ( aka "The Electric Universe" detailed by various secular astonomers and scientists). This model holds so called empty space to be a plasma, and all kinds of celestial phenomena to be plasma/electrical interactions. They see electromagnetic interactions to be the primary force, not gravity. They have lots of pretty pictures in their books of various nebula that are equal to the results of plasma discharge. Totally not related to geo-helio debates at all, nor to old earth- young earth debates, but very interesting to anybody who likes to read this sort of thing.


----------



## thbslawson

If we follow the same hermeneutical principal interpreting the passages that geocentrists use to defend their position, must we also conclude that the earth is flat from these passages?

_"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth, and its height was great. 11 The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was *visible to the end of the whole earth*."_ - Daniel 4:10-11

_"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and *showed him all the kingdoms of the world* and their glory."_ - Matthew 4:8

_" And the devil took him up and showed him* all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time*,"_ - Luke 4:5

_"It is he who sits above the *circle of the earth*, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain,and spreads them *like a tent* to dwell in;"_ - Isaiah 40:22

_"He will raise a signal for the nations and will assemble the banished of Israel, and gather the dispersed of Judah from the *four corners of the earth*."_ - Isaiah 11:12

_"Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and *every eye will see him*, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen."_ - Revelation 1:7

If one is to be consistent in his hermeneutics with passages that seemingly teach geocentrism, then I don't see how he can draw any other conclusion from the above passages that the earth is flat and not a sphere.

And, if we follow the same hermeneutical principles, could it not also be argued from certain passages that earthquakes and tectonic plate shifting is, in fact, an illusion and not real.

_"tremble before him, all the earth; yes, the world is established; *it shall never be moved*."_ - 1 Chr 16:30

_"The Lord reigns; he is robed in majesty; the Lord is robed; he has put on strength as his belt. Yes, *the world is established; it shall never be moved.*"_ - Psalm 93:1

_"Say among the nations, “The Lord reigns! Yes, the *world is established; it shall never be moved*; he will judge the peoples with equity.”_ - Psalm 96:10

Again, I'll argue that if I apply the same hermeneutic being used to defend geocentrism from certain passages to the above passages, I must conclude that earthquakes and tectonic plate shifts and volcanoes are an illusion and do not exist.

We're going around and around and around with all of the scientific arguments, and that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. From what I can gather, the core issue for most geocentrists appears to be that the Scriptures (so they say) teach geocentrism, and my argument is that they do not. If they insist that they do, and they're consistent with their hermeneutics, then they run into a host of other issues and problems that they're going to have a difficult time explaining. 

Friends, we must remember, science is not inherently evil. The fact that many who deny God use it in an evil manner does not make it evil. It is the discovery of what God has created. God is the God of physics, mathematics, biology, etc. He has not created the laws of physics to trick us or confuse us. Some of the very technology we are using right now to have this discussion is based upon the fact that the earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. Were that not to be believed the internet, television, radio, global air travel, GPS, etc would simply not exist.


----------



## Mushroom

Well, I'm just a wood butcher, and Scott, if you're waiting for me to show my work, you're gonna have a long wait. I really don't hold to any dogmatic physical geocentricity, I just find science is often an arrogant byproduct of fallen man's desperate attempts to cast God over his shoulder, so I like poking it in the eye on occasion. Models are useful, and God has used amazing forces and constructs to provide for us life and being, but that's all they are, and they are all designed to bring about His glory and the manifestation of a people for Himself through His Son. I don't have to defend my positions at any professorial cocktail parties, so I'm content to trust the Lord rather than the often hilarious stretches that Hawkings et al will pursue to deny their maker.

In my work, the most complicated math I use is the Pythagorean Theorem (theorem? what?), many of you employ much more complicated calculations often derived from much newer theories that work as far as they go in your labors. I'm not going to put my faith in Pythagoras, and I humbly suggest it may be wise to withhold the same from Einstein, Planck, Hawkings & etc. The constructs, forces, energies, and matter (whatever we call them under whatever model) that we operate in now are apparently not going to be what we experience in eternity, and even if current theories are correct (and I don't concede that they are - been proven wrong too many times in the past), they will all soon be moot.

Happy time travel, ladies and gentlemen!


----------



## thbslawson

au5t1n said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Friends, we must remember, science is not inherently evil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who thinks science is evil?
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the very technology we are using right now to have this discussion is based upon the fact that the earth spins on its axis and orbits the sun. Were that not to be believed the internet, television, radio, global air travel, GPS, etc would simply not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not wanting to toot my own horn, but I'm finishing up an M.S. in solid-state electronics, which is the backbone of modern technology (cars, computers, smart phones, tablets, GPS devices - anything with a computer chip). Science is my bread and butter, and I have devoted a great deal of study to it. Nevertheless, I can readily admit that science is never finished speaking on a matter and has never given its final word. As Rev. Winzer noted earlier, there have been scientific revolutions before and there will be again. It is amazing how zealous the dogmatism in favor of a particular paradigm is here and how ridiculous the claims are against other paradigms, especially given that no one here has denied that any model that is useful may be used regardless of what Scripture may or may not be determined to say on the subject. Please ponder this carefully, as it is the crucial point here. Even if geocentrism were the right hermeneutical conclusion, it would not preclude using any physical model that is useful.
Click to expand...


I'm going to refrain from debating these points. I'd rather discuss the verses I brought up. I'll repeat that if the same hermeneutical principles are applied consistently that the geocentrists are using, then the earth must be flat and earthquakes are not real.


----------



## Mushroom

Or that a virgin gave birth to a Son?


----------



## thbslawson

Mushroom said:


> Or that a virgin gave birth to a Son?



You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe. There's a strong case to be made that Scriptures supposedly "proving" geocentrism can be easily interpreted in another manner consistent with the rest of the Bible. So let's stick to the subject at hand please.


----------



## au5t1n

thbslawson said:


> I'm going to refrain from debating these points. I'd rather discuss the verses I brought up. I'll repeat that if the same hermeneutical principles are applied consistently that the geocentrists are using, then the earth must be flat and earthquakes are not real.



I think that is wise, and I hope the thread continues along hermeneutical lines if it doesn't close first. Thank you for bringing relevant verses and exegetical considerations to the forefront. I am looking forward to seeing what follows.


----------



## One Little Nail

au5t1n said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.
> 
> If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!
> 
> how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, lest you assume these are good arguments, let me assure you that they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. These are unhelpful arguments, Robert.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


These may be unhelpful arguments but they are unanswered arguments!
Science is postulation upon observable physical phenomena, could you please give me an explanation as to why the stars are circling around a stationary point, is this an optical illusion or is it when physical phenomena doesn't fit a theory it is ignored by science so called.
Heliocentricity paved the way for Evolutionary Theory & Science.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Well the one thing I have learned from this thread is that no one seems to really understand how GPS satellites work.


----------



## thbslawson

One Little Nail said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> Man I find the notion that the Earth rotates on it's axis (by the way were is this axis that heliocentrists speak of,has it been sighted?) absolutely Incredulous, Preposterous & Absurd.
> 
> If the Earth rotated on its imagined axis, its rotational speed at the equator would be 1,600 kph, thats more than bullet speed & not a single soul is swept off its feet, what about the windshere factor, the surface of the earth would be sand blasted, I dont need any scienfitic theories to cover these facts up, just the law of common sense tells me it cannot be so!
> 
> how is it that the north star is stationary to an observer if the earth supposedly rotates on its axis is it also in a geosynchronous orbit around the earth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Robert, lest you assume these are good arguments, let me assure you that they are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. These are unhelpful arguments, Robert.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These may be unhelpful arguments but they are in answered arguments!
> Science is postulation upon observable physical phenomena, could you please give me an explanation as to why the stars are circling around a stationary point, is this an optical illusion or is it when physical phenomena doesn't fit a theory it is ignored by science so called.
> Heliocentricity paved the way for Evolutionary Theory & Science.
Click to expand...


Here's an explanation, but I doubt you will accept it.

Why Doesn't The North Star Move in the Sky? ~ Ice Cold Science Blog

It goes back to the example I gave earlier. Stand a stick or pole on the ground. Bend over at the waist and put your forehead on it. Now rotate around the stick, but keep it in place. Note, from your perspective the earth seems to be spinning, but it is, in fact, you who are moving. The North Star (a.k.a. Polaris) lies almost directly above the North Pole. Thus as the earth spins on it's axis, it appears to remain in the same place.


----------



## MW

thbslawson said:


> You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe.



The Bible explicitly says the sun stood still, yet for some reason a Bible-believer is considered laughable for believing it.


----------



## thbslawson

armourbearer said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're avoiding the question, by setting up a straw man here. The Bible explicitly says Christ was born of a virgin. It does not explicitly say the earth is the center of the universe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible explicitly says the sun stood still, yet for some reason a Bible-believer is considered laughable for believing it.
Click to expand...


Red herring.

The Bible also says that the earth is fixed and that the whole earth can be viewed from one point. Thus, applying the same hermeneutical principal, you must conclude that earthquakes are an illusion and the earth is flat. How can you not?


----------



## MW

thbslawson said:


> Red herring.



It appears that anything which moves in a theoretical direction you dislike is a red herring. It negates the purpose of having a discussion on alternate points of view.


----------



## MW

Joshua 10:13, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."

Matthew 1:25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."

Both are narratives purporting to describe what actually happened. Both are described as events which took place by means of divine power working in an extraordinary way. Why should the one statement require qualification and not the other?


----------



## thbslawson

armourbearer said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Red herring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that anything which moves in a theoretical direction you dislike is a red herring. It negates the purpose of having a discussion on alternate points of view.
Click to expand...


I'm asking a simple and direct question about the hermeneutical principles used in Joshua 10:13 and they are applied in other passages. Thus far you've been either unwilling or unable to answer the questions I've posed in relation to other passages of a similar nature. 

Hermeneutics is how we properly interpret a passage in its context. The Bible explicitly says a lot of things, some of which, without any interpretation and greater understanding may even _seem_ contradictory. Therefore, throwing out the virgin birth in this argument is a *HUGE* red herring. Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.

You're using a hermeneutical principal to interpret Joshua 10:13. I want someone to show me why that doesn't apply to the other passages I listed. 

So if "And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped" means the earth is at the center of the universe, doesn't spin and the sun orbits the earth, then why doesn't ""Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him." Mean that the earth is flat?

Why is it so hard to answer this?


----------



## MW

thbslawson said:


> Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.



That may be the way you feel, but it does not mean the original question was motivated in this way. In a discussion of facts it is well to leave personal feelings aside.



thbslawson said:


> Why is it so hard to answer this?



I don't think it is difficult to answer. Lynnie has placed her answer in very large script but for some reason it was still ignored. Your questions do nothing to challenge the geogentrist's contentions because (1) they are concerned with another phenomenon altogether, or (b) because you are inferring ideas from the text of Scripture rather than allowing the text of Scripture to say what it has to say.


----------



## thbslawson

armourbearer said:


> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only is it totally unrelated to the subject at hand, but seems like an emotionally driven attempt to imply that to deny the literal geocentric reading of Joshua 10:13 is to in fact deny the literal reading of Isaiah 7:14.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That may be the way you feel, but it does not mean the original question was motivated in this way. In a discussion of facts it is well to leave personal feelings aside.
> 
> 
> 
> thbslawson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it so hard to answer this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think it is difficult to answer. Lynnie has placed her answer in very large script but for some reason it was still ignored. Your questions do nothing to challenge the geogentrist's contentions because (1) they are concerned with another phenomenon altogether, or (b) because you are inferring ideas from the text of Scripture rather than allowing the text of Scripture to say what it has to say.
Click to expand...


I read Lynnie's Scriptures, hence my question regarding others and applying the same hermeneutical principle. But I can see this is fruitless. So I'm going to bid everyone goodbye on this subject.

It would be my preference that this thread be closed. I know that's not my decision. My original OP question was answered, and I think it's fairly clear from the dialogue here that very little has been accomplished.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> Joshua 10:13, "And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies."
> 
> Matthew 1:25, "And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name Jesus."
> 
> Both are narratives purporting to describe what actually happened. Both are described as events which took place by means of divine power working in an extraordinary way. Why should the one statement require qualification and not the other?



I saw a reply to this by Thomas in post 127 but not an answer. Or am I missing something?


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I saw a reply to this by Thomas in post 127 but not an answer. Or am I missing something?



I saw a justification for the red herring comment; nothing which interacts with the parallel or the questions I posed. If there is something which deals with the parallel and does not merely deny the parallel, I will be happy to consider it.


----------



## MW

thbslawson said:


> My original OP question was answered, and I think it's fairly clear from the dialogue here that very little has been accomplished.



The OP contained the following, "I didn't know such wild notions existed." "Is this kind of belief still common?"

It would seem much has been accomplished towards alerting you to the fact that this kind of belief is still maintained by some, although you obviously have not changed your opinion as to this being a "wild notion."


----------



## au5t1n

Rev. Winzer, what if someone said that the passage itself places qualifiers on the "standing still," namely that the "standing still" is "upon Gibeon" (v. 12) and "in the midst of heaven" (v. 13), not "in space" or "with respect to some absolute standard of rest and motion"? How would you respond?


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> Rev. Winzer, what if someone said that the passage itself places a context on the "standing still," namely that the "standing still" is "upon Gibeon" (v. 12) and "in the midst of heaven" (v. 13), not "in space" or "with respect to some absolute standard of rest and motion"? How would you respond?



Gibeon provides the location from Joshua's standpoint while heaven provides the reference point as to the cessation of motion. The text states that the miracle consisted not only in the sun standing still, but in the sun standing still in response to a man's command and that the Lord hearkened to the man. If the sun did not actually stand still one must wonder wherein the miracle consisted.

One must stretch the primae facie meaning of the text to limit the frame of reference to Gibeon, and thereby suppose the miracle takes place entirely in the phenomenological realm; and I would ask why the exegete is motivated to do this. There is nothing in the text to constrain it. There is nothing in the Scriptures themselves which suggest an alternate viewpoint. From where does the alternate viewpoint arise which constrains this exegesis?


----------



## au5t1n

Certainly an exegete ought not insert heliocentrism, but the question is whether he is constrained to conclude geocentrism from the passage. Maybe so, but I'm still puzzled over the significance of the qualifiers and whether they place limitations on how much we can derive from the passage. There is no question in my mind that the sun stood still, but (serious question) what is the sun? We might say it's a ball of gas in space, or we might say it's a light bearer in the sky, and either would be accurate. But in Hebrew surely the latter is a more precise and natural definition, in which case "the sun stood still" would mean that the light in the sky stood still, especially if the statement included qualifiers like "in the midst of heaven"? I am not sure that this would be liberal accommodation since it is not an error or a misconception on the part of the observers. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> One must stretch the primae facie meaning of the text to limit the frame of reference to Gibeon, and thereby suppose the miracle takes place entirely in the phenomenological realm;



I think here, Rev Winzer, you are confusing two things: 1) the miracle which occurred, and which was seen by all 2) the language that God elected to inspire the scribe to use. What other sort of language would Joshua have used? The claim that this text binds one who believes it to a particular cosmographical stance places a burden on the text that it was never meant to bear. Of course modern physics does not contradict this passage: all it can do is tell us what God had to do to create the miraculous effect.

What God did was to stop the sun in the heavens, in the plain ordinary sense which both a geocentrist or a heliocentrist would understand as a miracle. One must stretch the prima facie meaning of this passage to conclude that it binds us to a particular cosmography.


----------



## MW

au5t1n said:


> Certainly an exegete ought not insert heliocentrism, but the question is whether he is constrained to conclude geocentrism from the passage. Maybe so, but I'm still puzzled over the significance of the qualifiers and whether they place limitations on how much we can derive from the passage. There is no question in my mind that the sun stood still, but (serious question) what is the sun? We might say it's a ball of gas in space, or we might say it's a light bearer in the sky, and either would be accurate. But in Hebrew surely the latter is a more precise and natural definition, in which case "the sun stood still" would mean that the light in the sky stood still, especially if the statement included qualifiers like "in the midst of heaven"? I am not sure that this would be liberal accommodation since it is not an error or a misconception on the part of the observers.



I don't think it is liberal accommodation when the aim is to protect inerrancy in the face of scientific challenges. This would more be a case of fundamentalist accommodation.

As stated in other threads, I have difficulty conceiving of a miracle which only takes place on a phenomenological level. If the "natural" is merely one of appearance, then the "supernatural" is merely above and beyond the appearance.


----------



## lynnie

One thing I won't even get into here, but have found interesting to read, is some of the creationist commentary about God making the earth the first day, and light and dark and seas and land and seed bearing vegetation, and did not make the sun and moon and stars until the fourth day. I've read different speculation about what the light was, especially as there was light and darkness marking days. I reject the idea that the sky was so hazy you could not see anything until day 4, but the sun and moon were actually there from the start. No, they were created on day 4. There was light separated from darkness, and a daytime and nighttime, before the sun and moon and stars existed.

So what then? The earth got kicked into an orbit and a spin after day 4? 

If you reject the literal creation account its probably of no interest. But if you do, it raises interesting questions that the geocentrists find helpful to their position, which includes the earth being embedded in a firmament.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> What God did was to stop the sun in the heavens, in the plain ordinary sense which both a geocentrist or a heliocentrist would understand as a miracle. One must stretch the prima facie meaning of this passage to conclude that it binds us to a particular cosmography.



Your interpretation allows for the geocentric understanding of the miracle which makes best sense of the passage and fits in with what the rest of the Bible teaches . The question then emerges, Why would one seek or choose a heliocentic understanding?


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Your interpretation allows for the geocentric understanding of the miracle which makes best sense of the passage and fits in with what the rest of the Bible teaches . The question then emerges, Why would one seek or choose a heliocentic understanding?



Because the physical evidence suggests it and mathematically it makes more sense. Further, the text doesn't bind us, really, one way or the other on what is, in the end, an empirical question.


----------



## Mushroom

Philip said:


> mathematically it makes more sense.


Or is it that mathematically it is a simpler model? If so, why is that then evidence it is exclusively true? Some seem to believe that to be the case, rather than it simply being a useful model for a certain set of calculations.

Geostationary (poke) satellites notwithstanding, Holy Spirit said the sun stood still. I have read nothing here to move me to doubt His Word.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation allows for the geocentric understanding of the miracle which makes best sense of the passage and fits in with what the rest of the Bible teaches . The question then emerges, Why would one seek or choose a heliocentic understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because the physical evidence suggests it and mathematically it makes more sense. Further, the text doesn't bind us, really, one way or the other on what is, in the end, an empirical question.
Click to expand...


I have to get off the train here. Physical evidence cannot be brought to bear on the interpretation of the passage. It may be that the passage is not a conclusive proof text for a geocentric cosmology, but this will need to be decided on exegetical considerations alone. I use physics every day in my discipline, but not in my morning Bible study. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bookslover

armourbearer said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> What God did was to stop the sun in the heavens, in the plain ordinary sense which both a geocentrist or a heliocentrist would understand as a miracle. One must stretch the prima facie meaning of this passage to conclude that it binds us to a particular cosmography.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your interpretation allows for the geocentric understanding of the miracle which makes best sense of the passage and fits in with what the rest of the Bible teaches . The question then emerges, Why would one seek or choose a heliocentic understanding?
Click to expand...


The Bible describes the sun being stopped by the miraculous activity of God in one particular instance and for one particular purpose. The sun being stopped once does not lead to a belief in geocentricity. It's a non sequitur. As to why one would seek or choose a heliocentric understanding - because it's true.

Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course).


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> Because the physical evidence suggests it and mathematically it makes more sense. Further, the text doesn't bind us, really, one way or the other on what is, in the end, an empirical question.



The text binds us to understand it in the clearest light. If the constraining factor is "physical evidence" and "mathematics," I ask, Whose evidence and mathematics? It can't be imagined that the original writer and reader had access to this evidence and mathematics. If this is granted it is obvious that the constraining motive for the heliocentric interpretation is foreign to the text.

Besides, as you would well know, there are strong philosophical considerations for understanding this "evidence" and "mathematics" as an human construct which may be overturned in favour of a better one.


----------



## MW

bookslover said:


> Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course).



Thankyou for emphasising a major motive in the rejection of geocentricity. It proves very instructive.


----------



## lynnie

Off the subject a bit, but interesting:

In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, *in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month*, on the same day all the fountains of the great deep burst open, and the [j]floodgates of the sky were opened. 12 The rain [k]fell upon the earth for forty days and forty nights.

and the water receded steadily from the earth, and at the *end of one hundred and fifty days* the water decreased. 4 *In the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month*, the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat.


This implies 5 months of 30 days each. (We can't prove that they didn't go 31-29-28-32-30 or some such variation of 5 months and 150 days, but it makes sense that the months for Noah were 30 days each).

That means something happened to alter the lunar months a bit. Fascinating subject.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> It can't be imagined that the original writer and reader had access to this evidence and mathematics. If this is granted it is obvious that the constraining motive for the heliocentric interpretation is foreign to the text.



Explain to me what exactly a "heliocentric interpretation" is, here. As far as I can tell, I interpret the text literally, given that this is precisely the sort of ordinary language one would use to describe the miracle, regardless of one's scientific background. Why force the language of scripture to do something it was not meant to do or to mean something it was not intended to mean? Why think that the language commits us to a particular scientific position?

At this point, I think I've said all that I need to say. Frankly, Rev Winzer, with all due respect, I find the endeavour a bit Quixotic: nobly motivated by a high regard for Scripture, but ultimately tilting at what is, to my mind, a mere windmill. I'm doing my best here to understand what exactly your concern is, but I'm failing to comprehend why you think Scripture commits us on what is, in the end, an empirical question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

bookslover said:


> Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course).


Richard,


Having read the threads and discussions on this topic for the past few years I think I will have to disagree with your rhetorical sling. I am on the fence in someways about this since I am not a Scientist. I really don't care if the Sun revolves around the earth or visa versa. But I do care about what the Scriptures say. Your rhetorical comment, "Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course)," sounds just like a common brush off many people make concerning Christianity and the Bible.


Let me give you a for instance. My sons went to Public Schools and when the evolution / creation discussion would arise in Science class the teacher would instantly display the same kind of attitude you are portraying here in my estimation. After all, (according to Mr. Stevens) creationism has been so debunked by evidence and proof, isn't it just accepted fact that evolution has debunked the Bible? The developing fossil record bares this out. Why should anyone have faith in a book with so many contradictions and interpretations? Doesn't everyone know that the Bible is full of men's thoughts about what they perceive? The Bible is just full of myths therefore empirical science is the best way to proceed. 


I am not trying to be harsh but your rhetorical comment is similar to many brush offs I have encountered with believers and non-believers. Just saying.....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## CJW

bookslover said:


> Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course).



They used to laugh at us for believing in Hittites too.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> Why think that the language commits us to a particular scientific position?



I don't think this. Quite the opposite. Scripture commits us to the view that all empiricism is a part of God giving the earth to the sons of men.


----------



## Mushroom

bookslover said:


> Geocentricity? No wonder unbelievers laugh at Christianity (among many others, of course).


Why restrain yourself, Richard?


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why think that the language commits us to a particular scientific position?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this. Quite the opposite. Scripture commits us to the view that all empiricism is a part of God giving the earth to the sons of men.
Click to expand...


So (popping back in) could we, maybe, distinguish heliocentrism as a scientific theory and heliocentrism as a mythology? That is, the scientific position that earth is not the physical center of the universe, versus the view that earth is thereby not significant or unique in creation.


----------



## SRoper

au5t1n said:


> Scott,
> 
> In the rotating earth model, the zero sum is obtained by means of a fictitious force called "centrifugal force" that is provided by the tangential velocity of the satellite. The centripetal force - pointing inward - is provided by gravity. The two are set equal (or equivalently, summed to zero) and the radius is calculated, just as you did above. In the geocentric model, instead of a fictitious centrifugal force, you have a real force provided by the rotation of the aether. You want an equation, but I don't know what else to tell you other than that the equation is the same. It is literally the exact same equation. The only difference is what accounts for the outward force that balances gravity. The answer is that it's a real force allegedly caused by the rotation of the aether, just as in the model in which the earth is rotating, the gravity is balanced out by a fictitious centrifugal force that is really provided by the tangential velocity of the satellite. That's it. That's all there is to it.
> 
> Regarding your claim to Lynnie that there would be no sidereal day in a geocentric model, that is not accurate, either. The revolution of the earth around the sun does not just disappear in a geocentric model. It is accounted for in the same way, just with the earth defined at rest and all other motion defined relative to it.
> 
> I have enjoyed the interaction with you gentlemen, but I think I've had my fill for now. Besides, I would rather see a hermeneutical discussion of this subject. Perhaps after the dust has settled on this thread, I'll eventually start another one for hermeneutical considerations only, as I think it is essential to separate the two.



I know you are likely done, but you are not correct in your analysis of even the rotational model. The net force is not zero according to the rotational model. There is no outward force. If there was, the satellite would stay on the same velocity vector and fly off into space. The centripetal force provided by gravity is a net force that is always accelerating the satellite towards the Earth. This has the effect of continually changing the velocity vector so that the satellite follows a circular path around the Earth. You can't change direction without a net force. If you review the equations I wrote down you won't find any outward force.

This is not the case with the geocentric model which requires zero acceleration and hence a net force of zero (F = ma). I'm going to try something different and invent a dialogue between me and a geocentrist. Lynnie, it will have to be a geocentrist that does not believe in the rotation of the Earth as I simply can't address every variation of geocentrism out there. I hope that is acceptable. This is mostly to identify where I seem to have the geocentrist position wrong. If you feel it is a straw man then kindly correct the dialogue where appropriate.

Scott: You are a geocentrist?
Geocentist: Why yes. The Earth is fixed and immovable.
S: So you don't believe the Earth moves up or down?
G: No.
S: You don't believe the Earth moves sideways?
G: No.
S: You don't believe the Earth move in or out?
G: No.
S: You don't believe the Earth spins like a top?
G: No.
S: So the Earth is truly stationary?
G: Yes.
S: What of the stars?
G: Well they move with an orbital period of 86,164 seconds.
S: And the sun?
G: It moves with an orbital period of 86,400 seconds.
S: And the planets?
G: They are more complicated.
S: What about that geostationary satellite?
G: It doesn't move at all. You can watch it all day every day and it won't budge. And since we are standing on the Earth which is fixed and immobile, anything that doesn't move from our perspective doesn't move at all.
S: It doesn't move up or down?
G: No, it does not get closer nor further away.
S: It doesn't move side to side?
G: No, it stays above the same spot on the Earth.
S: It doesn't spin like a top?
G: Well I suppose it could, but that doesn't matter. It would be geostationary regardless.
S: I agree. So if it is not moving side to side it can't be moving around the Earth.
G: That's right.
S: So it can't have an angular speed around the Earth.
G: True.
S: You wouldn't mind me just dropping the centripetal force factor from the left side of the equation. It just comes out to zero.
G: Right. Zero times anything is zero.
S: Well now I'm left with a strange result. That means that the gravitational force on the right has to equal zero. But the only way that could be true is if the satellite is at an infinite distance from the Earth which it is not.
G: Actually you are overlooking something...

And that is where I am stuck. Either the geocentrist wants to add an additional term to one side of the equation,or he wants to mess around with Newton's law of gravitation (or both). In any case, he needs the net force to equal zero at precisely the right altitude.


----------



## Mushroom

Philip said:


> the scientific position that earth is not the physical center of the universe


What precisely IS the center of the universe? As far as I can tell, science doesn't answer that, right?


----------



## Mushroom

SRoper said:


> or he wants to mess around with Newton's law of gravitation (or both).


And, Scott, what precisely IS gravity?


----------



## Tirian

Mushroom said:


> What precisely IS the center of the universe? As far as I can tell, science doesn't answer that, right?



According to Prophecy News Watch it is the Temple Mount


----------



## au5t1n

> I know you are likely done, but you are not correct in your analysis of even the rotational model. The net force is not zero according to the rotational model. There is no outward force. If there was, the satellite would stay on the same velocity vector and fly off into space. The centripetal force provided by gravity is a net force that is always accelerating the satellite towards the Earth. This has the effect of continually changing the velocity vector so that the satellite follows a circular path around the Earth. You can't change direction without a net force. If you review the equations I wrote down you won't find any outward force.



Yes and no. This is just two different approaches to solving the problem. Some physicists refer to the feeling of outward pull as centrifugal force, directed outward, and they balance this with gravity, as I described. But technically centrifugal force is a fictitious force which is actually just accounting for the net effect of the tangential velocity as the object moves around the center. Some physicists prefer not to work with fictitious forces, so they prefer to speak in terms of inward, centripetal force, which in this case is supplied by gravity. The math is otherwise the same. It's just a matter of convention - and we are still only talking about a heliocentric model. Look up centrifugal vs centripetal force.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> So (popping back in) could we, maybe, distinguish heliocentrism as a scientific theory and heliocentrism as a mythology? That is, the scientific position that earth is not the physical center of the universe, versus the view that earth is thereby not significant or unique in creation.



This dichotomy supposes biblical geocentricity is nothing more than unique focus. I think it is important to let the Scripture speak in its full-orbed intention of relaying facts as facts. I also think science can come up with whatever works for men. The two can contradict each other until the cows come home. Because neither should affect the other it should make no difference. It only makes a difference when men have a vested interest in it and subject theology to their own service; at which point God is sure to catch the wise in their own craftiness.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> I think it is important to let the Scripture speak in its full-orbed intention of relaying facts as facts. I also think science can come up with whatever works for men.



Help me. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that one could believe one thing to be true in fact and then act contrary to that belief without sinning or having cognitive dissonance. Because this looks to me like willful ignorance.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> Help me. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that one could believe one thing to be true in fact and then act contrary to that belief without sinning or having cognitive dissonance. Because this looks to me like willful ignorance.



I don't think a psychological malady like cognitive dissonance, which is subjective, applies objectively, as in this case. Christians hold numerous beliefs which are only harmonised by an appeal to the external authority of divine revelation. John 11:25, "Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."


----------



## One Little Nail

Logan said:


> I do have a genuine question for the geocentrists who come to this position exegetically.
> 
> If one assumes a geocentric system in which the sun (and everything else) orbits the earth and the earth is stationary, is there no problem posed by the speeds required?
> If the sun is 150 million km from the earth, it would have to travel 940 x 10^9 meters per day to complete its orbit (3.6% the speed of light). So far so good, but Pluto is 7.5 x 10^12 meters away from earth, so it has to complete its circle of the earth at speeds of 1.8 times the speed of light. The nearest star at 4.2 light years away has to complete its orbit of the earth at speeds of 9776 times the speed of light. Of course it gets worse the farther out you go, as the entire universe seemingly has to orbit the earth within 24 hours?
> 
> But maybe in a geocentric worldview speed doesn't have a limit since God doesn't? I'm sincerely asking.



Logan to answer your question "If one assumes a geocentric system in which the sun (and everything else) orbits the earth and the earth is stationary, is there no problem posed by the speeds required?" you cannot go and use Heliocentric Models & there presumed speeds, sizes, distances,masses etc 

In the Geocentric Heaven & Earth wherein we dwell we would have to conclude that all Heliocentrist measurements have to be discarded. so please let me pull the rug from under your feet.

For instance the Heavens are finite in size not infinite or expanding, the Earth isn't a planet that is part of a vast expanse of meaningless space, these things are what Atheistic Scientists believe, I am not saying that you believe this Logan, but am saying it merely to lay a framework, the heavens or "space" as science calls it, is nowhere near the size that it is assumed.

You would then have to say that the sun is not nearly as big as it said to be nor as far from the Earth as hypothesised nor does it travel as great a distance in circuit as would be speculated nor at the speed that is presumed to be travelling.
Likewise the moon, & the stars, whose number is astronomically exaggerated as they exist on a reflective firmament. 

so when all these excessively large heliocenrist dimensions & measurements are dispensed with you begin to get closer to the real to life Biblical Geocentrist Model. the heliocentrist universe really is just a fantasy in the imagination of the beholder


----------



## Logan

One Little Nail said:


> Logan to answer your question "If one assumes a geocentric system in which the sun (and everything else) orbits the earth and the earth is stationary, is there no problem posed by the speeds required?" you cannot go and use Heliocentric Models & there presumed speeds, sizes, distances,masses etc



Robert, normally I'd just pass on this but let me point out that you've given me absolutely no reason to accept anything in your post (sun is small, solar system is small, doesn't travel great distances, universe is finite, exaggerated number of stars etc) except your authority. These are simply not good arguments. You can't "pull the rug" out from under someone by just saying "Thus declareth Robert." You call this a "Biblical Geocentrist Model" but I've yet to see where the Bible gives a Geocentrc model. It seems to be derived (necessarily?) from a particular exegesis of a few passages, which unless I'm utterly forgetful, don't speak to the size of the sun, or the distances to the stars or to a reflective firmament or aether. 

You appear to have been reading some geocentrist websites. Let me give a warning not to believe everything you read simply because they purport to support your position. Test it!


Austin, if this was a matter of simply moving a coordinate system (as you seem to think) and using the same equations (as you seem to think) then what's the big deal? But it's not. The biggest problem in my mind is that many geocentrists believe the earth does not rotate. Then lots of explanations are made to explain things like satellites: the aether swirls around and buoys it up, or the gravitational pull of the crystalline, reflective firmament holds it up. This is not a simply a matter of moving a coordinate system, as the geocentrists I've read (Bouw and Jones) go to great lengths to show the heliocentric view is _wrong_ based on observations. They certainly don't seem to think both models are valid, or even useful.

By the way, Jones at least tries to present some mathematics, but his papers are somewhat poor. Jones also presents the idea of a non-rotating earth and a non-spherical moon (or at least one that generates its own light). He also states that there is not equal justification to view any location in the universe as center, or that the sun cannot operate by fusion. These are not simply using the exact same models, only shifted.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> I don't think a psychological malady like cognitive dissonance, which is subjective, applies objectively, as in this case. Christians hold numerous beliefs which are only harmonised by an appeal to the external authority of divine revelation.



That's not precisely what I mean. The cognitive dissonance would come from, say, a Christian who interprets scripture as you do on this point, who nonetheless does calculations for his work positioning geosynchronous satellites, work which presupposes a heliocentric solar system and the validity of the modified Newtonian physics. You maintain that this contradicts scripture. Let's grant that, for the sake of argument: practically speaking, then, he would be in sin to hold a job which requires contradicting scripture. Yet positioning geosychronous satellites doesn't seem to be problematic without this hermaneutic. Why base Christian ethics off of an interpretation which a) is flatly contradicted by technologies that we use every day b) isn't necessarily the only way to maintain historical inerrancy?


----------



## Mushroom

Nikola Tesla is considered by most modern physicists to have been wacked-out crazy, but many of his postulations work even if they don't understand them, so they use them. Why would a Christian who sees that the present models are workable _not_ use them, even if he knows that eventually better models will be developed. Using the Pythagorean Theorem does not make me a disciple of Pythagoras.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> That's not precisely what I mean. The cognitive dissonance would come from, say, a Christian who interprets scripture as you do on this point, who nonetheless does calculations for his work positioning geosynchronous satellites, work which presupposes a heliocentric solar system and the validity of the modified Newtonian physics. You maintain that this contradicts scripture. Let's grant that, for the sake of argument: practically speaking, then, he would be in sin to hold a job which requires contradicting scripture. Yet positioning geosychronous satellites doesn't seem to be problematic without this hermaneutic. Why base Christian ethics off of an interpretation which a) is flatly contradicted by technologies that we use every day b) isn't necessarily the only way to maintain historical inerrancy?



Perhaps an example from my own field will help. Every day I use quantum mechanics in describing how electrons behave in semiconductors. The Copenhagen interpretation of QM is what I was taught. It basically says that until you observe/measure an electron wavefunction, it does not have a definite momentum, position, and various other things. It is not merely that we do not know its momentum, but that it does not even _have_ a definite momentum until it is observed. The philosophical implications of this are enormous, but is it true? In a sense, yes. It is consistent with experiments, and thinking this way provides useful results that I use when I am modeling a transistor, which is the fundamental device that all modern computer chips are based on. I use it every day. But I am highly skeptical that this is the end of the story. I think that one day, physicists may figure out what wavefunctions are doing when we aren't observing them, and it may turn out that there is another way of looking at it besides "They don't have a definite position." In the meantime, I am content to use what is useful. 

If we waited around until we figured out how to square science with philosophy and theology, we'd never get anything useful done. Rev. Winzer believes that with respect to ultimate reality, the earth is at rest. It appears he does not necessarily expect physics to come up with a way to model the universe scientifically that accords with this knowledge. Perhaps one day physics will come up with a way for the earth to be at rest that is demonstrable by the scientific method; perhaps not. It doesn't matter because it isn't the job of the scientific method to figure out how everything useful accords with biblical revelation. It can be used because it's useful, with an understanding that we just may never know how it all harmonizes. This is why I'm more interested in hermeneutical considerations in this discussion. I have spent some energy in this thread trying to answer what I consider to be inadequate criticisms of certain scientific models, but that doesn't mean I think those models are right and the mainstream models are wrong. I just think criticism should be accurate.

Of course, the fact that I am more concerned with usefulness than strict accuracy in science may simply reflect the fact that I am in an engineering discipline rather than pure science.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell

I am no scientist, but I do believe that the view espoused by Austin (and a few others) is called operationalism--that it is our duty under God to develop more and more useful theories and practices, all the while understanding their limitation as far as Truth and Knowledge goes. Every age considers the one before it benighted, and itself enlightened. "Who knows what you'll 'know' tomorrow?"


----------



## Philip

au5t1n said:


> Rev. Winzer believes that with respect to ultimate reality, the earth is at rest. It appears he does not necessarily expect physics to come up with a way to model the universe scientifically that accords with this knowledge.



I understand this. The problem is that if this is what the Bible teaches (if) then we must categorically reject any model that does not accord with it, regardless of usefulness. It's interesting that we don't do this with evolution. Those who interpret the days of creation as literal 24-hour periods conclude from this that evolutionary models are categorically false. Period. To do otherwise is to hold a contradiction. See my problem? On the other hand, many of the church fathers concluded that the Bible taught a flat earth, and it was a point of debate in the early church that concluded (eventually) that the passages in question shouldn't be taken to mean that. Most of the church today has concluded this as well with respect to geocentrism and I don't see a compelling hermaneutical reason why this would be a problem.


----------



## Philip

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> I am no scientist, but I do believe that the view espoused by Austin (and a few others) is called operationalism--that it is our duty under God to develop more and more useful theories and practices, all the while understanding their limitation as far as Truth and Knowledge goes. Every age considers the one before it benighted, and itself enlightened. "Who knows what you'll 'know' tomorrow?"



Todd, I understand this and am fine with it. What I am not fine with is even operationally holding a view that one believes contradicts Scripture. Could I operationally hold JEDP? No.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> The problem is that if this is what the Bible teaches (if) then we must categorically reject any model that does not accord with it, regardless of usefulness.



Even if I were persuaded that Scripture requires a geocentric view, I don't know that this would force me to conclude that heliocentric calculations and the physics that goes with it are categorically contrary to Scripture. They would be contrary to Scripture only if we regarded them as ultimate reality. But why not simply say, "I just don't understand right now how this squares with Scripture, and I may never understand. But it works for our limited purposes, and God knows how it squares with Scripture." This isn't to believe a contradiction; it's a recognition of our limitations as creatures.

The reason evolution is regarded differently is because it includes historical claims rather than merely claims of operational science. I can use the rotation of the earth in the manner described by SRoper to launch a satellite, but I can't use evolution to do anything except make inaccurate historical claims.

By the way, there is a little bit of a parallel discussion going on in another thread that some may wish to follow. It starts here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f16/ken-ham-vs-bill-nye-debate-upcoming-81743/#post1031501


----------



## Philip

au5t1n said:


> Even if I were persuaded that Scripture requires a geocentric view, I don't know that this would force me to conclude that heliocentric calculations and the physics that goes with it are categorically contrary to Scripture. They would be contrary to Scripture only if we regarded them as ultimate reality.



Doesn't fly: geocentrism here is a categorical truth claim, meaning it would preclude heliocentrism even provisionally. Regarding heliocentrism as ultimate reality is something we shouldn't do: but we're talking about physical reality, not ultimate reality.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> au5t1n said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I were persuaded that Scripture requires a geocentric view, I don't know that this would force me to conclude that heliocentric calculations and the physics that goes with it are categorically contrary to Scripture. They would be contrary to Scripture only if we regarded them as ultimate reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't fly: geocentrism here is a categorical truth claim, meaning it would preclude heliocentrism even provisionally. Regarding heliocentrism as ultimate reality is something we shouldn't do: but we're talking about physical reality, not ultimate reality.
Click to expand...


What prevents a scientist from using something he believes to be technically incorrect because it is still an accurate way of getting a result that actually arises from some other, unknown cause for which he does not yet have a model? When studying electrons in a transistor, I pretend that an electron wavefunction is not in any definite position. It's not just considered to be in an unknown position. It's considered to be literally not in any particular position until measured. In fact, it's in a linear combination of all possible positions. I don't really believe this. I don't think that when electrons aren't being observed, they are in a linear combination of all possible positions in a strict, literal sense. I think it's an accurate way of doing QM calculations and that probably one day we'll find a different way of explaining what is happening. In the meantime, it's the only model I have, and it works for my limited purposes. I don't have to believe it's the end of the story in order to use it. Likewise, a hermeneutical geocentrist who is a scientist might use a calculation that involves the earth rotating while believing that really the earth doesn't rotate; he just doesn't understand and may never understand how his observations and physics can be reconciled with what he knows by divine revelation. (Again, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Scripture teaches a geocentric cosmology).


----------



## Philip

au5t1n said:


> Likewise, a hermeneutical geocentrist who is a scientist might use a calculation that involves the earth rotating while believing that really the earth doesn't rotate; he just doesn't understand and may never understand how his observations and physics can be reconciled with what he knows by divine revelation. (Again, I'm assuming for the sake of argument that Scripture teaches a geocentric cosmology).



Except that in this case a) there is a different model already b) he is flatly contradicting this model in his calculations. The problem is that in your case, you are using a provisional model because you have no answer to the question. The hermaneutical geocentrist, on the other hand, would be using a model that flatly contradicts what he knows to be true, acting contrary to his beliefs.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> Let's grant that, for the sake of argument: practically speaking, then, he would be in sin to hold a job which requires contradicting scripture.



Why would it be a "sin?" If the individual believes the model has some functional, temporary validity the individual may faithfully carry out his functional, temporary work without any feeling that he is compromising his religious beliefs.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> The problem is that if this is what the Bible teaches (if) then we must categorically reject any model that does not accord with it, regardless of usefulness.



As already pointed out, this is not my position. My position is that the science is "functional," an human construct, and quite within that dominion which God has given to man in giving the earth to the sons of men.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> Except that in this case a) there is a different model already b) he is flatly contradicting this model in his calculations. The problem is that in your case, you are using a provisional model because you have no answer to the question. The hermaneutical geocentrist, on the other hand, would be using a model that flatly contradicts what he knows to be true, acting contrary to his beliefs.



To switch to a geocentric model would, at least in the short term, make a lot of things more difficult to account for. An example would be the relativistic correction for the hydrogen atom. I don't know how to account for that equation without relativity. I'm not aware that anyone does.

Think about how much scientific knowledge has grown in the last couple centuries compared to the rest of history, and then try to imagine that we've only barely scratched the surface. What if what we "know" of physics is still only a drop in an ocean? We used to regard matter and energy as two independent things. More recently we have begun to derive a relationship between them. How well do we really know what matter is? What motion is? What rest is? What space is? Don't even get me started on _time._ It may be that for some reason unbeknownst to us, our current understanding of physics is intricately tied to the heliocentric model we have been using since before we discovered said physics, in which case we simply cannot get the same results in a geocentric model, at least not without unnecessarily difficult explanations. It may be that one day new discoveries about the nature of physical reality will make the whole debate irrelevant or else will give a physical account for the earth being at rest. In the meantime, there is nothing wrong with using whatever is most useful, even if (for the sake of discussion) we believe it is technically inaccurate and may one day be superseded.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Why would it be a "sin?" If the individual believes the model has some functional, temporary validity the individual may faithfully carry out his functional, temporary work without any feeling that he is compromising his religious beliefs.



If it isn't true, then it doesn't work. Science is the study and categorization of creation as per Genesis 2. If Scripture teaches something, then science should be bound by that teaching along with every other discipline. If geocentrism is correct biblical teaching, then Christians ought to do science from that perspective. If, on the other hand, Scriptural language does not contradict other models, then the Christian is free to use them.



armourbearer said:


> My position is that the science is "functional," an human construct, and quite within that dominion which God has given to man in giving the earth to the sons of men.



In which case one could be a scientific heliocentrist and a theological geocentrist. But earlier you seemed not to agree with this position.


----------



## Mushroom

The forces at work that such a model, although errant, measure, and prove to be workable, obviously show something. Just not necessarily what secular science says they do. There is no sin in utilizing such a model. To the Pythagoreans, his theorem was a part of a cultic construct, and to them it indicated mystical things, all false. Use of it is not an endorsement of such. To say it would be is carrying an argument to an absurd extreme, Phillip, our beloved philosophy major...


----------



## Philip

I'm fine with science as provisional. I'm not fine with holding two contradictory ideas at once.


----------



## au5t1n

Philip said:


> I'm fine with science as provisional. I'm not fine with holding two contradictory ideas at once.



What if they only _appear_ to contradict because at this point we don't have a good enough understanding of what motion and rest really are to account for why the heliocentric model works as well as it does or for how the earth can be at rest? Regardless, none of this can be allowed to have any bearing on the interpretation of Scripture.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> In which case one could be a scientific heliocentrist and a theological geocentrist. But earlier you seemed not to agree with this position.



I disagreed with making biblical geocentrism nothing more than a "focus" which minimised its intention to speak of facts in a full-orbed way. To make sense of the creation, narrative phenomena, poetical descriptions, prophetic utterances, one must begin with geocentrism as more than merely focusing attention on the earth.

In relation to another statement above, human dominion might have continued with a geocentric agenda and now be miles ahead of where it is today. We will not know. The fact is, under human dominion, all the expense and effort has been invested into the heliocentric agenda, and the science now reflects it. We work with what we have. We are not required to do more or less.


----------



## Philip

au5t1n said:


> What if they only appear to contradict because at this point we don't have a good enough understanding of what motion and rest really are to account for why the heliocentric model works as well as it does or for how the earth can be at rest?



They don't appear to contradict. They do. One would have to argue that the heliocentric model doesn't actually work, but only appears to work.



au5t1n said:


> Regardless, none of this can be allowed to have any bearing on the interpretation of Scripture.



Except that the created order does not contradict Scripture. If you see a contradiction, one of the two has been misinterpreted. Chrysostom and Athanasius both concluded the Scripture teaches a flat earth. Are we entirely certain that our conviction of the contrary is not based on science rather than hermaneutics?


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> The fact is, under human dominion, all the expense and effort has been invested into the heliocentric agenda, and the science now reflects it.



If the foundation is flawed, you salvage what you can and build a new foundation.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> If the foundation is flawed, you salvage what you can and build a new foundation.



That sounds like classic fundamentalist separatism to me, and quite unlike your usual perspective. We have to work in the world the best way we can. We do not have the power to Christianise everything to make it suit our ideal world. Because of the soveriegnty of God and His preserving grace the world does not need to be Christianised in order for a Christian to work in it.


----------



## Mushroom

Philip said:


> They don't appear to contradict. They do. One would have to argue that the heliocentric model doesn't actually work, but only appears to work.


That's a bare assertion, Phillip, and an irrelevant conclusion. Any contradiction is only in the conclusions drawn by secularists from the data. We are free to utilize the data without agreeing with the conclusions.


armourbearer said:


> and quite unlike your usual perspective.


Certainly a strange turn of affairs.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> That sounds like classic fundamentalist separatism to me, and quite unlike your usual perspective.



Which is why I can't find dogmatic geocentrism a plausible position, given my hermaneutic. I don't think science (actual science) has the ability to contradict Scripture.


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> I don't think science (actual science) has the ability to contradict Scripture.



Science would say our brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ are dead and gone. Scripture provides an extensive view which enables us to say they live. Science can neither validate or invalidate that view. If the problem is with the word "contradict" you can supplement it with a word you feel comfortable with. But it shouldn't be surprising to a philosophical mind that "working," "functional" human constructs can contradict Scripture when it is obvious those constructs are not absolute. The desire to harmonise will only serve to create an environment in which neither are able to function according to their full scope.


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> Philip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think science (actual science) has the ability to contradict Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Science would say our brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ are dead and gone. Scripture provides an extensive view which enables us to say they live. Science can neither validate or invalidate that view. If the problem is with the word "contradict" you can supplement it with a word you feel comfortable with. But it shouldn't be surprising to a philosophical mind that "working," "functional" human constructs can contradict Scripture when it is obvious those constructs are not absolute. The desire to harmonise will only serve to create an environment in which neither are able to function according to their full scope.
Click to expand...


Would you say the eyewitnesses of The Resurrection stated and testified to observable scientific fact? Just thinking out loud, in that just because others did not see Him alive could we say they(witnesses) did not observe and state a fact they saw Him alive.


----------



## MW

earl40 said:


> Would you say the eyewitnesses of The Resurrection stated and testified to observable scientific fact? Just thinking out loud, in that just because others did not see Him alive could we say they(witnesses) did not observe and state a fact they saw Him alive.



I was referring to our brethren who now enjoy the blessings of the intermediate state, which is hidden from earthly observation. The resurrection of our Lord involved an observable miracle in this world which was demonstrated by many infallible proofs to eye-witnesses. Empirical science could say nothing about the former but it could validate that our Lord was alive.


----------



## Philip

armourbearer said:


> Science would say our brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ are dead and gone.



Science can't address metaphysics, only physical phenomena. Is the physical location of the earth a physical phenomenon?


----------



## MW

Philip said:


> Is the physical location of the earth a physical phenomenon?



Yes, but "location" requires a point of reference in relation to something else. The reference point can only be relative so far as empirical science is concerned; hence the conclusion can only be relative. Scripture's ultimate perspective viewed from its absolute reference point cannot be validated or invalidated by the relative findings of physical science.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> If the problem is with the word "contradict" you can supplement it with a word you feel comfortable with. But it shouldn't be surprising to a philosophical mind that "working," "functional" human constructs can contradict Scripture when it is obvious those constructs are not absolute.


I may be misunderstanding here, but the word "functional" suggests to me that the science isn't actually arriving at truth. Surely it must have some connection to reality though, or we would not expect the models to work as well as they do? So I guess my question is: Would it be accurate to say that what science finds is (provisionally) true with respect to its own domain and perspective? And so a sort of scientific realism can still be maintained (maybe it could be called "restricted" or "limited" realism)? It finds truth relative to its own perspective and deals with relative reality--relative to the limits science has placed on itself and carries with itself.

So for example, one could actually hold as provisionally true that the earth goes around the sun with respect to observation, appearances, experimentation, human thought forms, but that in absolute reality, geocentrism is the case? (Of course, as noted, it could be someday that geocentrism is what is held as provisionally true in the sciences) So then, holding geocentrism and heliocentrism only contradict if we do not qualify their propositions with respect to their perspectives on reality that they speak to, but when those qualifications are made, no real contradiction forms since the two statements are affirmed in different senses (one with respect to one perspective, the other with respect to another perspective, which perspective is ultimate reality)?

I know we have discussed this before, but I'm trying to wrap my mind around how science can be described as merely "functional" yet still be said to arrive at provisionally held truths. I certainly appreciate something Mr. Bottomly said in a previous thread about how heliocentrism is a shortcut we have found to describe God's providential governing of the universe, and it makes me wonder whether we might be able to hold a sort of scientific realism still, instead of being forced into instrumentalism, anti-realism, or other non-realist views, e.g., that heliocentrism is nothing but a model that works and has nothing to say about reality--whether that be absolute reality (which is rightfully denied to science, it seems to me) or relative reality.


----------



## Philip

I was going to comment, but then I saw Raymond's question.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> So for example, one could actually hold as provisionally true that the earth goes around the sun with respect to observation, appearances, experimentation, human thought forms, but that in absolute reality, geocentrism is the case?



This seems to require dual realities, which I would steer away from because we would end up existentialist. There is only one reality; that is the one God created and reveals to us. Within this one reality there are diverse relationships, and these diversities are complicated by the fall. It will be impossible to go any further without writing a thesis on the worldview of Scripture, but reformed people in general accept that sinful human beings with all their follies are permitted to exercise dominion in this world under a restraining and forbearing Providence, and that this is subservient to the higher redemptive purpose whereby God saves, gathers, and builds up His elect in the world. This worldview should allow reformed people to work in the world and to accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective without granting ultimate epistemic validity to a fallen worldview.


----------



## Free Christian

I heard they, or some, reckon that our solar system is inside a galaxy that is near or at the centre of the universe. Even the scientist who mentioned it and is not Christian said he found it strange and as if there was some significance to it.


----------



## Afterthought

Thank you. I'm still a little confused but the process of eliminating what is incorrect does have its uses. One more round of questions for me today, and then I'll have to try to catch you again tomorrow if you are on.



armourbearer said:


> This worldview should allow reformed people to work in the world and to accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective without granting ultimate epistemic validity to a fallen worldview.


It is this part that I am having difficulty understanding: What does it mean to "accredit "scientific observation" according to a temporal perspective"? That this means we can accredit it as provisionally true or as a relative reality has been denied. Would "perspective on reality" be a better term? Could there be multiple perspectives for a single reality? Basically, if this does allow a type of scientific realism, what sort of realism is it, and if it does not allow for realism what is it allowing for? It seems impossible to deny a scientific realism and not hold science to be (provisionally, given its probabilistic nature) true in some manner (if truth corresponds with reality), so this question implicitly also asks: if this allows science to be true, precisely in what way is it true? If no realism is being held to, then is science giving nothing but convenient fictions? If so, then why do the models work so well; even well enough that the assumption of their truth allows them to predict things theoretically that are not confirmed experimentally until later; even well enough to sometimes begrudgingly convince even hardened skeptics of their "truth"? (I realize I am stretching terminology a bit; "realism" or "anti-realism" in the philosophy of science is referring to unobservables, not observables)

I remember when we discussed Turretin speaking of how seemingly contradictory statements between philosophy and theology could be resolved because philosophy was speaking according to natural causes while theology supernatural. While that is limited to understanding the difference between ordinary Providence and the miraculous, perhaps it can be extended to include our observations of ordinary Providence, and the resolution of the miraculous with ordinary Providence could be understood as a special case? If so, how does this resolution differ from saying heliocentrism is provisionally, observationally true while geocentrism is true according to absolute reality?

As another question, is there something special going on with the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate? Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions (and I'm guessing you mean philosophically relative; not necessarily scientifically relative), can we actually say both are true in different senses, though we could not say that in general with similar situations?

Finally, your mention of "worldview" reminded me of another geocentrist who claimed that we can trust science to deliver us truth when it is dealing with observation, while we can be suspicious when it is dealing with theory. So like some YECs distinguish between operational and origins science, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring origins science into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of Creation science); this fellow distinguished between observation and theory, the former being trustworthy and must be non-contradictory to Scripture while the latter not (but since not trustworthy, we must bring theories into non-contradiction with a Scriptural worldview; hence the use of scientific geocentrist models).

Would this be one of the ideas you have in mind (without having you to write out a thesis!  )? While observations are theory-laden, sure, there is still a distinction between observation and a theory to explain them, and as that geocentrist attempted to demonstrate, coming up with a theory involves the processes of the mind in such a way that they can be worldview dependent, and so subject to the noetic effects of sin (edit: I might as well link to it: http://www.csc.twu.ca/byl/physdraft.doc).


----------



## earl40

armourbearer said:


> earl40 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say the eyewitnesses of The Resurrection stated and testified to observable scientific fact? Just thinking out loud, in that just because others did not see Him alive could we say they(witnesses) did not observe and state a fact they saw Him alive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to our brethren who now enjoy the blessings of the intermediate state, which is hidden from earthly observation. The resurrection of our Lord involved an observable miracle in this world which was demonstrated by many infallible proofs to eye-witnesses. Empirical science could say nothing about the former but it could validate that our Lord was alive.
Click to expand...


I guess my point is that "science" did verify the resurrection.


----------



## lynnie

Brett- yes, there is various measurable evidence that our galaxy is at the center.

The real problem with this discussion is that we don't have the geocentric PhDs in physics and astronomy on here. If we did, a lot of things would be explained well and a lot of modern theory mysteries which are not explained or have inner contradictions would be detailed. But it is just us. Nobody is on the level of a Bouw or a Selbrede or the other guys for the science debates. 

The heliocentric model works well, but the "empty space" model of the universe does not. Even the secularists will admit that there must be far more mass than we can observe. One discussion is- does the earth orbit the sun, or the sun the earth? Another discussion is the "firmament"- or, what exactly is space. Selbrede refers briefly at the end of his article to why the universe is not anywhere as large as modern theory claims it to be and is a rotating massive firmament. Modern science gets closer all the time to a firmament- enormous mass we can't see, call it dark matter or something else, it exists.

Also, science does not think about where Jesus went when he bodily rose from the earth. He is in time and place, in a glorified body. Where? Geocentrists say in the third heaven, outside the visible universe which is much smaller than postulated. That opens up a whole other discussion.

I think if people read the actual materials by the geocentric scientists, instead of reading posters here, they would be far more interested and open to the subject. 
_
Because in this particular case "location" and "movement" actually are relative notions_

Raymond- again- Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.

This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics. 

Einstein understood this, he realized the implications, and therefore since everybody "knows" the earth is not at rest, he formulated a complicated relativity theory to explain the results. And that undergirding mentality, like Darwinian evolution in biology, pervades almost everything nowadays. 

It doesn't make Einstein wrong and the geocentrists with classic wave behavior right, but understand that geocentrists reject that relativity theory. And again, you can argue with people here of course, but if you read some of the detailed rebuttals to relativity by the big brains, you would perhaps be more sympathetic to geocentricity.


----------



## Logan

lynnie said:


> This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.



There is a difference between speed and frequency.

This is a perceived frequency change (Doppler shift) because of the motion of the ambulance. The sound waves are still traveling at 340 m/s. If you were sitting inside the ambulance you would notice no frequency change because your speed, relative to the ambulance, is zero. Regardless, the speed of the sound is the same.



lynnie said:


> Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.



The experiments of Einstein's day could show the earth is at rest under one assumption, it could show the speed of light is a constant under the other. If you're talking about Doppler shift from either moving toward or away from stars, that was not what these experiments were designed to show, yet incidentally, there have been measurements based on the velocity of the earth looking at the Doppler shift of stars. When the Earth's orbit is toward a star we see a tiny rise in the frequency and when it is away from the star we see a tiny lowering of the frequency: consistent with predictions based on Earth's rotational velocity around the sun (which is minuscule compared to the speed of light and requires very sensitive instruments). I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.


----------



## lynnie

_When the Earth's orbit is toward a star we see a tiny rise in the frequency and when it is away from the star we see a tiny lowering of the frequency: consistent with predictions based on Earth's rotational velocity around the sun (which is minuscule compared to the speed of light and requires very sensitive instruments). I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts._

I doubt it. Einstein didn't believe in such a rise and fall, but I'm not up on the latest claims. But I just sent an email to Selbrede at Chalcedon to ask about it. Hope he replies. As I understand relativity, you just contradicted that theory, no? Which would make you an old fashioned classical wave physics person....which I like 

If they close this thread before Selbrede writes back, if he does, I'll post his reply or send you a PM. If you are correct, that would be consistent with heliocentricity, but like I said, I doubt the people you are reading are correct. But let me see if I get a response.


----------



## Logan

au5t1n said:


> This is accounted for easily enough. From an observational standpoint...



Why would you use a shifted coordinate system as an explanation? If that were the case, why would I not accept it? Austin, I've still seen no geocentrist say that everything is the same just with 0,0,0 set on the earth. If that were the case then this entire discussion would be no big deal. The explanations of a "firmament" of unknown density, thickness, etc to account for "centrifugal" forces (for just things around the Earth apparently, not other objects orbiting the sun) are where the problem lies.



au5t1n said:


> But I described above that it is no trouble for a geocentric model because it is not a "physical cause" question but just an observational question.



You described it to be no trouble for your geocentric model of merely shifted coordinates. At that point this entire discussion becomes trivial.



lynnie said:


> As I understand relativity, you just contradicted that theory, no?



No, and that's where I've been confused: you seem to be seeing the Doppler effect and general relativity as mutually exclusive.


----------



## Logan

au5t1n said:


> Because the question you posed was not a question of physical causes but only of whether something would be observed. I simply pointed out that all of the observed motions are the same in both models



Respectfully Austin, they are not. They are the same if you merely shift the coordinates, they are not if you accept an absolute geocentric view, complete with aether and firmament, which is kind of what this whole discussion has been about, isn't it? I don't understand why you would even say they would be the same if you were to observe from a different location. I know they would be, yet it seems irrelevant to the discussion.



> Let God be true, and every man a liar



This is true, and I think (if I recollect correctly) that A.W. Pink used that exact statement when he made the claim that the earth is flat because the Bible says so. I may be mistaken on that. But I would also add that we as men are fallible in our interpretation of God's infallible word, and should approach it with humility. In this instance, it seems to me that a geocentric view is derived from a perceived _implication_. I don't see geocentrism explicitly taught in the Bible and would be very reticent to be dogmatic about it, especially as exegetes for the last several hundred years have not seen the Bible as tied to a geocentric view. Maybe they are all wrong, maybe they are all a product of the current-day beliefs, but then one would have to seriously consider the same is true for a Ptolemaic view, would one not?

I found a warning from Gary North (who I seldom read) that while biting and biased, seemed relevant particularly in reference to geocentric models proposed.



Gary North said:


> Misinterpreting the Bible, however, is always dangerous. Furthermore, recruiting ill-informed and emotionally vulnerable laymen (theological and scientific) in terms of both the misinterpretation of the Bible and an outer fringe theory of the cosmos endangers the victims' spiritual maturity.
> 
> Geostationism strains the outer limits of both cosmology and credulity. If the naive victims' faith in geostationism is ever shaken by the breakin-in of reality, their faith in the word of God becomes at risk. Playing bizarre games with astrophysical theory in private is one thing, so long as no one hires the practitioner to work in the space program. Developing bizarre theories in the name of anti-establishment science is normally neither dangerous personally nor significant culturally. It is the pastime of very bright, very bizarre people. But a problem arises when others with far more to lose emotionally are attracted to these bright by bizarre people. These bright, bizarre people had better be correct, not just bizarre. Other people's spiritual and emotional stability is at stake.



I sincerely hope this will be my final post in this thread. I too would be more interested in the exegetical approach to such passages as Josh 10.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover

> I am not sure why the quoting of my post was followed up with a statement about geocentrism, as I've said nothing in that regard either way. My post was intended to combat the idea that Science _verifies_ Scripture, nor could it. Scripture establishes its own verity, and there is nothing outside it which may bring it into judgment or critique.



But, Joshua, science does verify Scripture, in the sense that it finds historical artifacts that confirm what Scripture has already revealed. For example, archaeology has recently discovered coins with King David's name on them, from the era when David lived, that confirm his historical existence. Yes, Scripture is its own witness to its own truthfulness, but there are occasions when science is able to confirm this. Archaeology might be the only science that can do so with consistency, but it does happen.


----------



## Logan

> I am not sure why the quoting of my post was followed up with a statement about geocentrism, as I've said nothing in that regard either way... Scripture establishes its own verity, and there is nothing outside it which may bring it into judgment or critique.



I agree, and I tried not to tie you to geocentrism in that paragraph, but merely wanted to jump off that to add that while the Scriptures are infallible, we are fallible interpreters and a degree of humility is also required when saying "let God be true and every man a liar". I apologize if you or anyone else thought I was tying you to geocentrism. I did not intend to do so.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> This is a perceived frequency change (Doppler shift) because of the motion of the ambulance. The sound waves are still traveling at 340 m/s. If you were sitting inside the ambulance you would notice no frequency change because your speed, relative to the ambulance, is zero. Regardless, the speed of the sound is the same.


There is still a Doppler effect, since that derives from the motion of the source through the medium, air. But the passenger creates an offsetting Doppler effect through their motion through the medium, and the sound is detected as unchanged. It affects both frequency and wavelength.


Logan said:


> I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.


If, as postulated in a geocentric paradigm, said star is hung in a firmament or absolute space, then the motion still exists, and the light will be affected as described by Doppler. A geocentric model does not deny the motions of heavenly bodies.


----------



## Afterthought

lynnie said:


> Raymond- again- Einstein himself understood that the experimental evidence of his day showed conclusively that during the part of the year the earth is supposed to be hurling towards a star as it orbits the sun, and six months later is hurling away from the star on the other side of the orbit, we get a zero value for the change in the speed of light. Einstein himself understood that light is a wave and normally you would add the velocity of the earth in one direction and subtract it in the other.
> 
> This is no more relative than an ambulance pitch changing as it approaches you and then passes you. This is basic wave physics.
> 
> Einstein understood this, he realized the implications, and therefore since everybody "knows" the earth is not at rest, he formulated a complicated relativity theory to explain the results. And that undergirding mentality, like Darwinian evolution in biology, pervades almost everything nowadays.
> 
> It doesn't make Einstein wrong and the geocentrists with classic wave behavior right, but understand that geocentrists reject that relativity theory. And again, you can argue with people here of course, but if you read some of the detailed rebuttals to relativity by the big brains, you would perhaps be more sympathetic to geocentricity.


I am actually quite sympathetic to scientific geocentricity. And maybe I just have unusual professors, but I seriously doubt they would merely brush the theory off and instead would take it seriously, judging it as any scientific theory. I have read much of the scientific geocentric literature. It has been quite some time, so my memory may not be correct, but I had thought that not all of them rejected relativity. Indeed, from what I understand of the theory, it actually helps the geocentrist case...unless one wants to have an absolute scientific geocentrism. I also remember being disappointed with the lack of mathematics in the literature. Perhaps it is because their audience is a lay audience. I looked again and found the "Biblical Astronomer" actually has something that looks like a real scientific presentation of "Geocentric mechanics," though I don't have time just now to look through it to be sure it is what it appears to be.

I don't recall whether that was actually one of Einstein's motivations, or even his primary one, but I do know he had other motivations too. He was a Machian and wanted to construct a Machian theory, and he also always had an interest in Maxwell's equations. It also isn't fair to view his theory as complicated, except for general relativity's mathematics. Special relativity is actually rather nice, and both of his theories are derived from a few simple assumptions. And both can be explained intuitively fairly easily. There also may be a subtle and fundamental problem with rejecting his two assumptions; I'll have to look at my textbook again, but I seem to recall reading that there was something more fundamental that basically dictated there must be something that is a universal speed limit (given that the laws of physics look the same in all frames), and that speed limit was postulated by Einstein to be c, the speed of light, in special relativity.

But anyway, this is all getting off topic again. The sentence that you quoted from my post is basically a philosophical observation that "location" and "motion" must be measured relative to something in order to be meaningful. Hence why there were other relativities before Einstein. I'm not entirely sure why these are always relative according to empirical science (that was going to be in another round of questions to Rev. Winzer), but I can see why they would be considered relative in general. I appreciate your attempts to clarify matters, and I hope I'll have some time someday to look at that plasma universe you mentioned. Having done some (undergrad) research in plasmas, I might find that interesting.


----------



## earl40

> Science _cannot _do so, and that is the point. To assert such is to say that there is something outside of Scripture -which is God's revelation- judges Scripture. Scripture may not be put in the dock. Let God be true, and every man a liar.



Science...."knowledge attained through study or practice,"

I realize how it is impossible _for us_ to come to the realization of Who God is via science, but at least it appears that Thomas leaned something by what he saw with his eyes and felt with his fingers. Of course those who witnessed the resurrection came to believe in it by a "scientific method" and we are "more blessed" than they because we were given faith by the gift of spiritual sight, or faith in The Lord as Rev. Winzer pointed out already.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> I remember when we discussed Turretin speaking of how seemingly contradictory statements between philosophy and theology could be resolved because philosophy was speaking according to natural causes while theology supernatural.



It might be useful if you could find that quotation and repeat it here, although it is bound to get lost again in five pages of thread.

I understand your question as a desire to explore the deeper significance of the topic, but it is hard to do so in a thread in which the topic itself is under debate; it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> There is still a Doppler effect, since that derives from the motion of the source through the medium, air. But the passenger creates an offsetting Doppler effect through their motion through the medium, and the sound is detected as unchanged. It affects both frequency and wavelength.



It seems like you're trying to correct me, I'm trying to make sense of this explanation...creates an offsetting Doppler effect? Are you sure you've got that right? The Doppler effect is a perception from the point of the observer, the emitted waves are not altered. I'm likewise baffled that you appear to be always trying to correct me on physics. Why tell me it affects both frequency and wavelength as if I wouldn't know?



Mushroom said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot think of any geocentric explanation for these Doppler shifts.
> 
> 
> 
> If, as postulated in a geocentric paradigm, said star is hung in a firmament or absolute space, then the motion still exists, and the light will be affected as described by Doppler. A geocentric model does not deny the motions of heavenly bodies.
Click to expand...


I don't think you understand. If there is a firmament with a rotational period of 1 *day*, why during part of the *year* would certain stars in this fixed firmament be appearing to "move" away from the earth and during the other part of the *year *"move" away? I cannot think of an explanation from an absolute, geocentric, firmament model. That doesn't mean there isn't one.


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.



That's why I'm sitting here on the bottom with my SCUBA gear--just too many waves (bad pun intended)


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> It might be useful if you could find that quotation and repeat it here, although it is bound to get lost again in five pages of thread.
> 
> I understand your question as a desire to explore the deeper significance of the topic, but it is hard to do so in a thread in which the topic itself is under debate; it is a bit like snorkelling in a tsunami.


Hah! Very true!  I almost made my own thread on the matter for that reason, but since everyone else was discussing these sorts of questions I've raised, I posted here instead. I do have some interpretive questions too though (and Austin asked some of them that I had), and I'll ask them at some point to return to the exegetical considerations that spawned this sidetrail.

Here it is. We actually discussed it in another thread: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/turretin-solves-creation-evolution-debate-72265/


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> It seems like you're trying to correct me, I'm trying to make sense of this explanation...creates an offsetting Doppler effect? Are you sure you've got that right? The Doppler effect is a perception from the point of the observer, the emitted waves are not altered. I'm likewise baffled that you appear to be always trying to correct me on physics. Why tell me it affects both frequency and wavelength as if I wouldn't know?


Not trying to correct you, Logan, just pointing out an additional factor that is somewhat... relative. I'm certain you are aware of those things. Doppler effects are a major component to the differences of positions in this discussion, as you point out. Some assert that they disprove at least part of Special Relativity.

But as for the offsetting effects, a person is standing on the back of a fire engine. The siren is blaring at the front, so the waves behind are elongated. But the person's forward motion is compressing the waves in a nearly perfect manner so as to return the frequency and wavelength to it's original state, so they hear the sound as it was at first. A person inside a closed cabin or rail car is not relevant to this experiment, because they are travelling in an envelope of air moving with the vehicle, and hear the sound as it penetrates the walls of said cabin, and so compression and elongation are lost. At least that is my understanding.

No offense intended, although the incredulity and tone are somewhat off-putting. Likely just internet mistranslation.


----------



## MW

Afterthought said:


> I almost made my own thread on the matter for that reason



If you do perhaps we could explore science as an human construct, particularly with a book like Hawking's Grand Design as a foil. I would be interested to learn the current philosophic feeling on it. My own view is that Hawking has inadvertently done a service to Christian theism in outlining the relativism involved with "natural" science and the presuppositions which drive it.


----------



## MW

VictorBravo said:


> That's why I'm sitting here on the bottom with my SCUBA gear--just too many waves (bad pun intended)



Vic, you have a "deep" sense of humour.


----------



## Afterthought

armourbearer said:


> If you do perhaps we could explore science as an human construct, particularly with a book like Hawking's Grand Design as a foil. I would be interested to learn the current philosophic feeling on it. My own view is that Hawking has inadvertently done a service to Christian theism in outlining the relativism involved with "natural" science and the presuppositions which drive it.


It is made! I tried my best to write the OP, but it is difficult to do so when I'm unclear on some of these things that I'm trying to learn about. Hopefully it does the sort of thing you had in mind. I actually don't know much about what the current philosophic feeling on that book is, so hopefully someone else will be able to contribute that part.


----------



## SRoper

I'm returning after several days of absence. There's a lot to wade through which will have to wait for another time. I can only address what was directly addressed to me.



Mushroom said:


> SRoper said:
> 
> 
> 
> or he wants to mess around with Newton's law of gravitation (or both).
> 
> 
> 
> And, Scott, what precisely IS gravity?
Click to expand...


Who knows? It's a name we give to describe the force of attraction between two masses. It is arrived at empirically and described by Newton's law of gravitation (as modified by Einstein for fast things). It's a good model, not ultimate reality. The reason I insist on it is because, currently, there is no alternative. Geocentrism has not provided an alternative, even a more complicated one.



au5t1n said:


> I know you are likely done, but you are not correct in your analysis of even the rotational model. The net force is not zero according to the rotational model. There is no outward force. If there was, the satellite would stay on the same velocity vector and fly off into space. The centripetal force provided by gravity is a net force that is always accelerating the satellite towards the Earth. This has the effect of continually changing the velocity vector so that the satellite follows a circular path around the Earth. You can't change direction without a net force. If you review the equations I wrote down you won't find any outward force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no. This is just two different approaches to solving the problem. Some physicists refer to the feeling of outward pull as centrifugal force, directed outward, and they balance this with gravity, as I described. But technically centrifugal force is a fictitious force which is actually just accounting for the net effect of the tangential velocity as the object moves around the center. Some physicists prefer not to work with fictitious forces, so they prefer to speak in terms of inward, centripetal force, which in this case is supplied by gravity. The math is otherwise the same. It's just a matter of convention - and we are still only talking about a heliocentric model. Look up centrifugal vs centripetal force.
> 
> Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...


Centrifugal force is a force that is away from the center. It is the force that a person in a rotor feels that keeps them glued to the wall. It is different than the velocity vector of a satellite or a ball on the end of the string which is not in a direction away from the center but tangential to the circle described by the orbit. Velocity is not a force, even a fictitious force. Fictitious force comes about from acceleration. I think you are confusing two ideas. Centrifugal force only comes into play if you are talking about forces felt inside the satellite. It does not describe the motion of the satellite relative to the Earth, which, in the case of the rotational model, requires a non-zero net force to keep it on a curved path.

Time for a humor break? It should be obvious why this discussion reminded me of this comic.




Centrifugal Force

Only centripetal force will act on Mr. Bond from Mr. Goldfinger's stand-in's perspective. That's why he will move in a circle instead of a straight line. On the other hand, Mr. Bond will experience a centrifugal force pulling him out counteracted by an opposite normal force from the wall of the rotor. From his perspective, relative to the rotor, he will have no motion and no net force. The two sets of equations are different because the reference frame is different.

Sometimes it is useful to describe things in terms of fictitious forces. That's what the Coriolis effect is. However it should be clear that geocentrism is entirely made up of fictional forces. There is nothing like Newton's law of gravitation that you can use as a model. Every situation is different and requires an ad-hoc system to describe it. What works on Earth doesn't work on the Moon and certainly doesn't describe the space between.


----------



## au5t1n

Scott, we are in agreement. I know that force involves acceleration not constant velocity, but the velocity is technically not constant due to the changing direction. Velocity, as you know, is a vector, not a scalar. This is indeed the source of a person in the satellite feeling a centrifugal force. It is a net effect as you go around the circle. It is the same reason that if you put Matthew Henry's commentaries (why not?) on your dashboard and drive around a curve, they may (if they can overcome friction) slide outward from the projected center of the curve. 

I realize that a centripetal force problem can be solved without centrifugal force, but the reverse is also true. I was taught both methods by different professors and both work. If you give me another unnecessary physics lecture, I might just make a video showing both methods of calculation and post it here, but I really don't have time for that, so please don't make me. 

Loved the comic. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## lynnie

My reply from Mr Martin Selbrede: ( re 183, 184):

*****************************

There are two variations of the geocentric model that account for the phenomenon in question.

In the modified Tychonic model (the version of geocentricity that most geocentrists tend to adopt), the motion of the stars, etc., is tied to the Sun, so that the annual motion of the Sun is also geometrically shared by the stars. This gives a purely geometric explanation of the dynamics. This would be the form of geocentricity that secular scientists working within relativistic frameworks, for example, Einstein or Poincare or Hoyle would have adopted, as it is a simple coordinate transformation with all the relative velocities remaining constant. This, as has long been pointed out, is due to the general covariance of Einstein's field equations (which also has implications for forces present at the Earth's surface). This model also accounts for related phenomena alleged to "prove" heliocentricity (diurnal variation of meteoric influx presumed to be due to how the Earth scours out a path through interplanetary debris during its alleged journey around the Sun, etc.). 

There is, however, a minority view among geocentrists, whom we shall call the purists, who don't think the modified Tychonic model is the right geocentric paradigm to promote. This smaller group is extremely well versed in high power mathematics, and were able to make some rather remarkable scientific concepts quite rigorous. In this variation of geocentricity, the stars do NOT partake of the annual motion of the Sun, but are rotating around a center that is still fixed on the Earth. The question them becomes, how then do these purists account for parallax and aberration? These two phenomena are distinct in the modified Tychonic (and conventional heliocentric) cosmologies, but not in the case of this "pure geocentric" model. What these men have discovered is that if you treat the Earth as the sink of a conformal mapping (an elaborate mathematical procedure that is tractable in two dimensions, but not yet in three dimensions), you discover that both parallax AND aberration are two orthogonal components of a single phenomenon tied to that mapping effect at the sink. Because this derivation was made rigorous in two dimensions, it has considerable scientific plausibility and provides a rather novel approach to the behavior of starlight that isn't anticipated in conventional heliocentric cosmology nor in the majority version of geocentricity, the modified Tychonic model (which leverages the same explanation as heliocentricity uses to explain these phenomena, namely, dynamic shifts in system geometry). The purists are interested instead on the behavior of the light and accounting for it directly as a property of the light and the position of the sink. The non-purists and detractors of geocentricity are interested in the geometry, assuming nothing unusual about the behavior of light in any way, shape, or form.

I hope this helps set forth the two options available under the geocentric paradigm to explain phenomena such as posed in the quote you affixed to your inquiry.

As to the interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the situation is rather simple: the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value. Those physicists who hold to various ether theories have to also teach that the ether is "entrained" at the Earth's surface to create that null result, but that means that there is a gradient in the ether between the Earth's surface and outer space — and this gradient (required by this model) simply does not exist, and has never been found. There is also a massive disproportion in this effect between the daily and annual motion of the Earth, where the greater acceleration yields the smaller apparent effect — but such discrepancies are ignored. The geocentrists, to their credit, do not ignore this evidence, they make sure these serious problems with the modern cosmologies remain center stage wherever and whenever possible. Nobody should be given a free pass on a question of this nature, nor permitted to fudge the data.

Martin


----------



## Logan

Thanks Lynnie. I could see an annual Doppler shift in a Tychonic universe, but as I've said before that's simply moving the starting point in our coordinate system to earth, and I don't have a problem with that, _per se_, though it seems more for rhetoric than for anything practical.

I don't personally see how the concept of a "sink" in two dimensions helps and would relegate that to speculation at this point.




lynnie said:


> the heliocentrists assume the Earth to be in motion, and reject the zero-velocity reading of the interferometer as representing physical reality. In their view, nature conspires to hide the motion of the Earth. The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value



I have a problem with this after reading the experiment. That there is a zero-velocity (difference) reading can have multiple interpretations. The assumption Michelson and Morley were going on was the existence of this aether that affects the speed of light. I found no place where they interpreted their data to mean the earth was at rest, their conclusion was actually that the aether was "completely dragged" with the earth. Another interpretation is that the speed of light is constant, and after many, many, many experiments, this has been the accepted conclusion. To say that geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at "face value" is misleading, as their "face value" has assumptions of aether underlying it. Heliocentrists also take the result at "face value", only with different assumptions (that have been tested I might add).

Anyway, interesting discussion.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> Another interpretation is that the speed of light is constant, and after many, many, many experiments, this has been the accepted conclusion.


Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that *both* a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, *and* b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that both a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, and b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?



This page is of course incomplete but has many resources related to experiments regarding special relativity, but specifically look at section 3.3 for light speed from moving sources.

I should note that practically speaking, this is used in radar (electromagnetics) and things like laser finders. We can tell the exact distance to say, a fighter jet flying at mach speed. There is a Doppler shift, but the round-trip time for the electromagnetic pulse (whether microwave or laser) is unaffected by the speed of the object. This of course works reciprocally when the radar/laser is mounted on the moving aircraft/spacecraft.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> Mushroom said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there an experiment that you can point me to that confirms Einstein's postulation that both a) c is unrelated to the motion of an emitter/source, and b) c is unrelated to the motion of an observer/receptor?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This page is of course incomplete but has many resources related to experiments regarding special relativity, but specifically look at section 3.3 for light speed from moving sources.
> 
> I should note that practically speaking, this is used in radar (electromagnetics) and things like laser finders. We can tell the exact distance to say, a fighter jet flying at mach speed. There is a Doppler shift, but the round-trip time for the electromagnetic pulse (whether microwave or laser) is unaffected by the speed of the object. This of course works reciprocally when the radar/laser is mounted on the moving aircraft/spacecraft.
Click to expand...

Logan, as I read it, this refers to the effect (or non-effect) of motion of an _emitter/source _on c, as does your mention above of radar, etc. I don't see how this correlates to the effect of motion of an observer/receptor on c.

That's the crux of SR, right? And the reason that Einstein used Lorentz transformations to infer that matter increases in mass and flattens in-depth as it approaches c - to make the observations of M-M fit into his schema? (makes me think of all those particles at the CERN accelerator and why they don't grow to near infinite mass)

But as far as I've heard, there are no experiments that stand up to rigorous critique that prove *both* 'a' and 'b' above. Perhaps there are, but I just don't know about (or can't understand) them.


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> Logan, as I read it, this refers to the effect (or non-effect) of motion of an emitter/source on c, as does your mention above of radar, etc. I don't see how this correlates to the effect of motion of an observer/receptor on c.



No, which was why I said it works both ways: whether the laser/radar is on the nose of the jet (source moving) or on the ground looking at the jet (observer moving), the reading is still the same.



Mushroom said:


> That's the crux of SR, right? And the reason that Einstein used Lorentz transformations to infer that matter increases in mass and flattens in-depth as it approaches c - to make the observations of M-M fit into his schema? (makes me think of all those particles at the CERN accelerator and why they don't grow to near infinite mass)



Einstein did not reference the M-M experiment in his famous paper and it's not certain if he knew about it or not (Einstein said he didn't think he had read it at that point but regardless it didn't influence him). I'm not sure how he made the "observations of M-M fit into his schema". As I've said before, that experiment was designed to detect a theorized aether wind, NOT motion of the planet and not the speed of light relative to motion. Even if the assumption of a real aether were true, it would necessarily not imply a stationary earth except under extremely specific conditions which don't help the geocentric model in my mind.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> Einstein did not reference the M-M experiment in his famous paper and it's not certain if he knew about it or not


From the Wikipedia article on the History of SR:


> The failure of any experiment to detect motion through the aether led Hendrik Lorentz in 1892 to develop a theory based on an immobile aether and the Lorentz transformation. Based on Lorentz's aether, Henri Poincaré in 1905 proposed the relativity principle as a general law of nature, including electrodynamics and gravitation. In the same year Albert Einstein published what is now called special relativity – he radically reinterpreted Lorentzian electrodynamics by changing the concepts of space and time and abolishing the aether.


So whether Einstein had read it or not (as improbable as that might be, seeing it was a major milestone in the development of SR), M-M being the main experiment that failed to detect motion, it was certainly by 1905 a known conundrum that SR was postulated to address. Not sure of the 'relevancy' of this insistence that AE knew nothing of M-M.

But aside from all that, measuring Doppler effects on EM emissions to determine speed/location (Heisenberg anyone?) of objects by reflection does not address the effects of b) above. If there is a solid experimental proof of both I'd like to see it.


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> So whether Einstein had read it or not (as improbable as that might be, seeing it was a major milestone in the development of SR), M-M being the main experiment that failed to detect motion, it was certainly by 1905 a known conundrum that SR was postulated to address. Not sure of the 'relevancy' of this insistence that AE knew nothing of M-M.



It's only relevant because it keeps being said that relativity was the "answer" to there being no motion detected. Please, please keep in mind that the M-M experiment was to detect motion of _aether_, not the earth. There are multiple ways to interpret the results, depending on your assumptions.



Mushroom said:


> But aside from all that, measuring Doppler effects on EM emissions to determine speed/location (Heisenberg anyone?) of objects by reflection does not address the effects of b) above. If there is a solid experimental proof of both I'd like to see it.



The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply here, it's like you're just tossing out scientific terms without understanding their meaning or application. It applies to quantum particles, the measurement of which affect the particle. The act of measuring its location affects the particle so that we cannot know the speed at which it was going. This is not true of objects not on the quantum level.

I don't see how it doesn't address the effects of "b)", in one example the source is moving, in the other receiver is moving. We even have both source and receiver moving when an aircraft targets another aircraft. But anyway, I pointed you to the literature, it's up to you to read and understand them if you want.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> The Heisenberg uncertainty principle does not apply here, it's like you're just tossing out scientific terms without understanding their meaning or application.


I was being facetious, Logan, but in fact your point is actually debatable - although not applicable to this discussion.

I'm not sure you're understanding what I am asking, Logan, or perhaps I'm not understanding you. Doppler effects on EM radiation bouncing off of or being emitted from moving large objects such as an airplane don't seem to apply to the question. The differences are negligible when compared to 'c'. Doppler doesn't directly address speed, it deals with wavelength and frequency, as you noted earlier, and the measurements are not based on how long it takes for the beam to return, but frequency variation that will change with distance.

Which is why its important to note that the person at the back of fire engine creates his own, offsetting, Doppler effects to restore the sound waves to nearly their original frequency and wavelength. There is a medium through which they (fire engine and person) are traveling that causes the Doppler effect - the sound travels at a constant speed, but the medium affects f & w. So what might be the medium that causes Doppler effects in light?

But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole - but not a black hole since Hawking now says they don't exist. (Being facetious again, Logan, just in case you weren't able to tell)


----------



## lynnie

GEOCENTRISM-Sagnac's experiment - an animated explanation - YouTube

This is a short video about the Sagnac effect, another major experiment along with Michaelson-Morley.

This is "Airy's Failure." He was the Royal astronomer. Fascinating.

GEOCENTRICITY - An animated explanation of "Airy's Failure" experiment. - YouTube 

Very simple, and shows the earth is not moving in orbit.

This is one of a gazillion youtubes about Michaelson-Morley ( secular, modern). You can see how either there is aether/firmament/(dark matter?) and the earth is at rest, or if the earth is moving in orbit then there cannot be aether. 

Prelude to Einsten's Theory I - The Michelson-Morley Experiment (2/3) - YouTube

The geocentrist position is so integrally related to the biblical firmament that you can't separate them. 

Logan- you are correct that M-M was really about the aether initially. Eventually it became about speed of light appearing to be the same when it should show changes in velocity (no interference fringes) but it wasn't about that when they did it. So I can see that my comments were at best confusing.

_The geocentrists argue that the interferometer's readings should be taken at face value._ ( Selbrede)

I guess there is faith either way- you believe the geocentrist position and in a firmament, or heliocentric with no firmament and light waves that don't behave the way we expect waves to behave. Either way something needs faith.
The Bowden youtubes have all sorts of geocentricity videos on the side to look at if anybody cares to pursue this. I think I'll give up  I do hope you will at least look at the ones on Sagnac and Airy.


----------



## lynnie

*But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole....*

Brad, that was an impressive summary. You should have been a lawyer. Thanks for a memorable quote. 

The thing is though, I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds. He says it is traveling the same speed, and yet always clocks the same, even if one of the objects has velocity and one does not. Which goes against all physics for all other waves, as well as common sense. But unless the earth is at rest, nobody has a better answer for the experiments. I think it takes a greater leap of faith to believe in relativity than geocentricity. Either way, you have to suspend belief if you were brought up on heliocentricity.

mods- thanks for letting this thread go so long.


----------



## Mushroom

lynnie said:


> I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds.


No he doesn't, which is why it doesn't make any sense, but it makes the data fit. Just like wet sidewalks cause rain...


----------



## Afterthought

lynnie said:


> My reply from Mr Martin Selbrede


Thank you, that was very helpful. This might be the fellow to ask my own question of when I get the chance.

Also, if there was a way to access actual scientific papers that those who promote these theories have written, that would be helpful (though I doubt it will be worth discussing them on this thread, it would satisfy at least my curiosity.).


----------



## Logan

Mushroom said:


> I'm not sure you're understanding what I am asking, Logan, or perhaps I'm not understanding you. Doppler effects on EM radiation bouncing off of or being emitted from moving large objects such as an airplane don't seem to apply to the question. The differences are negligible when compared to 'c'. Doppler doesn't directly address speed, it deals with wavelength and frequency, as you noted earlier, and the measurements are not based on how long it takes for the beam to return, but frequency variation that will change with distance.


I did not refer to the Doppler effect in the last several posts. That has nothing to do with the velocity of the _wave_ or light you were asking about.

Let me put it this way: in radar we make two general calculations: distance (based on the time it takes for the wave to travel out and back) and speed (based on the frequency shift of the received wave). The two are completely independent of each other. We can calculate distance to very, very fine accuracy and it is independent of the speed of the transmitter/receiver, or the object (thus the assumption of a constant speed appears to be correct).

The speed of the object (or transmitter) is determined based on the frequency shift, which is unrelated to the velocity of the _wave_



Mushroom said:


> Which is why its important to note that the person at the back of fire engine creates his own, offsetting, Doppler effects to restore the sound waves to nearly their original frequency and wavelength. There is a medium through which they (fire engine and person) are traveling that causes the Doppler effect - the sound travels at a constant speed, but the medium affects f & w. So what might be the medium that causes Doppler effects in light?



This understanding is wrong, and I tried to explain it before. There is no "offset", there is only perception of say, crests of wave coming closer together because of relative motion, and the Doppler effect is not created by the medium, it is created by the speed of the transmitter/receiver. The _velocity_ of the wave _is_ affected by the medium, which is why light will travel slower through water, or sound travels faster. And no, this is not a relativistic explanation, this all came before Einstein.



Mushroom said:


> But again, and maybe somebody else can help me here, is there a reliable experiment that can show that light emitted from a star hurtling at us at high speed will clock at the same speed as it enters our eyes as it would if standing on the surface of said star? And if it would, what would be it's speed as clocked while standing on an asteroid traveling away from us at half the speed of the star? If its all the same, then light is traveling in at least 3 different speeds, and in fact an innumerable variety of speeds as it passes through an innumerable variety of reference frames. Sorry, but that's just hogwash, and an example of Einstein et al trying to force their square peg into a round hole



The _velocity_ of light (from the source) would be measured to be the same in all three instances. The _frequency_ however would be different in the observed locations because of the Doppler shift caused by motion.



lynnie said:


> The thing is though, I don't think Einstein says it is traveling at different speeds. He says it is traveling the same speed, and yet always clocks the same, even if one of the objects has velocity and one does not. Which goes against all physics for all other waves, as well as common sense.



It does not go against physics for other waves or wavelike motion. The analogy of a wave from an ambulance siren (with associated velocity and Doppler shift for the stationary observer) is exactly the same. A wave from a star has an associated velocity and Doppler shift. The velocity of the ambulance siren's wave _will not change_ based on your velocity or the velocity of the ambulance. It is a constant. That's why there is a "sound barrier" for jets. Why does "common sense" dictate differently for electromagnetic waves?

By the way, both the Sagnac and Airy experiments were designed to measure the flow of a hypothesized aether, so once again it does not (and cannot) prove a stationary earth except with certain assumptions. That no aether flow was detected has any number of explanations and to single out the one belies a presupposition that there is an unmoving aether unaffected by mass but that the earth is not moving through it.

Please guys, criticizing models and theories is fine, I'm interested in new ones. I'm genuinely interested in the explanations a geocentrist model has, but not when the criticisms are based upon *misunderstandings* of the current model. I really need to back out of this, I've devoted a lot of time already.


----------



## au5t1n

Logan, 

You keep insisting that the velocity of a sound wave is constant even when the receiver is moving. That is true with respect to the medium (say, air) but not with respect to the receiver, which perceives a net velocity. If the calculation is performed relative to the medium or the earth, velocity is rightly held constant. But in a hypothetical c measurement based on starlight, the earth is the receiver, and before relativity, you could justifiably have expected to measure different net speeds relative to earth. It is you who have misunderstood.

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Logan

That is correct Austin, but that is not a misunderstanding, that is a definition. In a hypothetical situation where the observer is moving at the same speed and same direction as the source, the light would never reach him (_net_ velocity of zero). But that's never been the question.


----------



## Mushroom

Logan said:


> That is correct Austin, but that is not a misunderstanding, that is a definition. In a hypothetical situation where the observer is moving at the same speed and same direction as the source, the light would never reach him (_net_ velocity of zero). But that's never been the question.


Wait! You mean to say that a light beam traveling towards me, if I were traveling at the speed of light in the same direction, would have a net velocity of zero? So what if I were traveling say 50,000 mps _less_ than the speed of light? Would said beam be traveling at net velocity 136k mps, or does that net zero thing only happen when I'm traveling at 'c'? Hmm... I think that _has been_ the question all along. And now it seems more clouded than ever.

But we don't see that, we see light always at 'c' except where affected by medium other than a vacuum. Einstein says that's the case no matter where we are in the universe. Others have long postulated an aether that acts as a medium that limits light to 'c'. Still others have postulated an absolute 'rest' that is that limit, as recorded on Earth and her proximity. And there are still other theories. I'm not an adherent of any single one, just skeptical of relativism. Your arguments concerning Doppler are based on an assumption that light is not traveling through a medium (or perhaps affected by an absolute rest), which is why you assume that the shift is only a factor of motion relative to the observer. That's the standard relativistic view, and it seems as though you can't conceive of any other possibility. That's fine. But I still would like to hear of a reliable experiment that proves both a) & b) above. If anybody can cite that, then we can dispense with the 'theory' part of ... The _Theory_ of Relativity.


----------



## au5t1n

Surely we can agree that in relativity c is constant in a way that is different from the way the velocity of a sound wave is constant. The latter is constant with respect to the medium of propagation, and we used to suspect the same for light (the proposed medium being a "lumeniferous aether" before MM), but relativity posits that c is constant when measured from different reference frames - not with respect to a medium but with respect to the object from which it is measured. This is categorically different from the way sound behaves. I don't think your hypothetical example is consistent with special relativity. In SR, the net velocity of light should always be c when measured from anywhere. 

I do agree, however, that the predictions of special relativity cannot be abandoned without something that makes the same predictions replacing it. I am familiar with the mathematics of relativity, and there is no getting rid of those equations. A scientists who rejects special relativity needs to account for them some other way, and I'm not aware that this has ever been done. 

Sent from my XT557 using Tapatalk 2


----------

