Geocentricity Question

Status
Not open for further replies.

Timmay

Puritan Board Freshman
I’ve stumbled upon some old threads on geocentric models of the universe. This is fascinating stuff. I have a question to those who know better.....

It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position. What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth?

Also, how does the Higgs Boson come into play with respect to the geocentric model?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.
 
This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.
Taylor, what he is positing is a model in which the sun is the center of the solar system, but the earth the center of the universe, not a model in which there are two centers to the solar system.
 
This isn't my wheelhouse at all, nor am I a geocentrist, but it is difficult for me to conceive of the center of a system also revolving around something else within that system. It seems to me that the center of something by definition is the point around which the rest of that thing revolves.

I don’t think being in the center necessarily means something has to revolve around it. If the universe is only a couple thousand years old, even though the earth is revolving around something, the earth can still be at the center as opposed to a billion year universe where the earth may have revolved away from the center of the universe because of the massive amounts of time involved. I don’t see why the Earth couldn’t revolve around the sun and yet maintain its positional centrality.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’ve stumbled upon some old threads on geocentric models of the universe. This is fascinating stuff. I have a question to those who know better.....

It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position. What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth?

Also, how does the Higgs Boson come into ply with respect to the geocentric model?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The sun revolving around the earth tends to be the raison d'etre for geocentrism. Most people who adopt the position do so because they think that it is theologically or philosophically important for the sun to revolve around the earth.
 
I suppose I am an unusual geocentrist because I accept that orbital mechanics accurately depict and predict observations. That means it is fine to posit a model for observational purposes that has the earth revolving around the sun, etc. It makes for relatively easy calculations.

But I like to challenge myself on remembering that the "natural laws" we come up with are empirical summaries of what we observe or experience, nothing more. God's universe behaves in an orderly fashion according to his will.

For example, we talk about the force of gravity because we feel it and measure it. But is it an attractive force? Or is it God's upholding word requiring the object to act in a prescribed manner?

I'd be very surprised if observational experiments end up "proving" geocentricism. It is a way of looking at the world to remind us that Creation is not God.
 
Taylor, what he is positing is a model in which the sun is the center of the solar system, but the earth the center of the universe, not a model in which there are two centers to the solar system.
I understand what he is saying. I am saying that that is inconceivable to me. For instance. Look at this circle:

1609342022087.png
A is the center of the circle. I cannot conceive of how A can revolve around B while also still maintaining its position as the center of the circle. The only way that could happen, as I see it, is for the circle itself to move, too. I guess it also depends on what precisely we mean by "center."
 
God does not contradict himself in His creation. We can be sure that studying the heavens will not lead us into error.
Rather, we can be sure that studying the heavens with biblical presuppositions will not lead us into error. Yes, God does not contradict himself in creation, but the noetic effects of sin cause many to stumble in their scientific pursuits.
 
It appears that the Earth is near the center of the universe since Gamma Ray Bursts are observed isotropically, CBR is constant in all directions, plus other things we are somehow able to observe from our position.
Standard cosmological models put anything and everything at the center: there is no center.
What I can’t seem to figure out, from the geocentrist understanding, is why can’t the earth revolve around the sun, the sun around our galaxy, etc, AND the Earth be at the center of the universe? Why do geocentrists posit that the universe has to revolve around the Earth?
Because that is the simplest coordinate transformation from the perspective of GR (which is mathematically agnostic--and originally intended to be physically agnostic--to the center), which is "needed" in order for geocentrism to be consistent with observations. A physically absolute geocentrism that had the earth revolving around the sun and the earth at the center of the universe would require the universe to rotate or (probably more accurately) wobble to maintain the earth's centrality. So far as rotation of the universe goes, I was told by my old cosmology professor that the universe has the wrong topology for that to be the case. I don't know about a wobble. Perhaps a geocentrist could be happy with approximate absolute physical centrality (though I do not know of any geocentrists who hold that), since the earth-sun distance or even the galactic-scale is nothing compared to the universe; or maybe they could come up with a different definition of "center" that would not require a wobble (maybe center of gravity of the universe and all the rotations and revolutions of objects miraculously exactly cancel out to produce the center at that point? Or maybe even center of mass [I feel like something might discredit this already; I'd have to give it a think; just throwing it out there.]?). (Some geocentrists do allow the earth to rotate, but all have the universe and the sun going around the earth)

Also, how does the Higgs Boson come into play with respect to the geocentric model?
It doesn't. The Higgs Boson is what allows particles in the Standard Model that should be massless by the symmetries of the universe (which include things like energy conservation) to "softly" break the symmetry and become massive: important for the Standard Model to match observations, since we observe particles to have mass. The only geocentrist I know who has made use of high energy particle physics for his absolute physical geocentrism made use of superstrings in an aether. I don't recall the Higgs Boson coming into play there, and I don't see where it would be relevant (except in very indirect ways).
 
Last edited:
I think you mean to distinguish between the data and the interpretation of that data.
Exactly. I wasn't disagreeing with you. Since this is a Christian board, the "biblical presuppositions" part is to be assumed. Still, there are many out there, including many Christians, who believe that human beings are presupposition-less tabula rasa, to the end that whatever they discover in nature, however it is concluded, is de facto the case. It's just not true. Presuppositions matter. There are no brute facts.
 
Still, there are many out there, including many Christians, who believe that human beings are presupposition-less tabula rasa, to the end that whatever they discover in nature, however it is concluded, is de facto the case. It's just not true. Presuppositions matter. There are no brute facts.
Turretin affirms tabula rasa with some qualifications, which are, to paraphrase, that while humans are not born with declarative knowledge, they are born with innate logical principles that may be worked out. Which is pretty much identical to the epistemology of Noam Chomsky. Also Thomas Aquinas. All that to say, I think you should reconsider. Whatever conclusions we come to regarding epistemology, they need to lead to a strong affirmation of objective "facts", or we won't be able to conclude our heathen neighbors under sin. We should not be existentialists.
 
Here is a good DVD series explaining geocentricity and how it is mathematically possible for those interested. I tend to believe when scripture says the sun moves (or stood still) and goes to its place, that is does.

Journey to the Center of the Universe
 
One argument I've heard posed for geocentricism is that there is no telling which object is fixed and which is rotating, and that it's all a matter of perspective, so if we conclude that the earth is fixed that's not a problem from a physical or mathematic standpoint. However, that's simply not true, due to the principle of absolute rotation. A freely swing pendulum readily demonstrates that the earth moves around it because over the course of a day it will procede opposite the direction of the rotation of the earth.
 
Forgive me if Im misrepresenting the argument, but a free swinging pendulum demonstrates that the Earth *does* move, yet my understanding of geocentrism necesitates belief that Earth *does not* move. Correct?

The earth does not move or does not rotate? I thought some geocentrists allow for rotation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Could you present the arguments here for us to consider?

I think nobody on this forum disbelieves scripture when it speaks of the sun moving and going to its place. Rather, we do not think this logically necessitates or even implies geocentrism. I find it faulty exegesis to seek conclusions about orbital mechanics in passages that are intended to display God's judgment, or His sustaining power over creation.
Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.

 
Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.

Can you explain in your own words how the Foucalt Pendulum does not demonstrate that that earth is rotating about its axis every 24 hours?
 
Physics wasn't my strongest area of study, but the fact is that the mathematics can support the geocentric model just as much as the heliocentric. It is also interesting that the RCC played a part in suppressing a key experiment and its findings. Here are some free videos and explanations, but the DVD's I referenced were very good.


I've gone around on this many times in the past. A mathematical model (ellipses, rotation) is not equivalent to a physical model. Yes, one can come up with equations that describe a situation where the sun and universe rotate around the earth. But there is no physical model I've seen that can account for that much mass moving that quickly. Could God do it? Absolutely. He could also re-create the entire universe in each successive moment as Edwards believed. That doesn't prove that's how he does it, though.

All the geocentrist explanations I've ever seen take just enough information to support their case and ignore anything that doesn't fit it.
 
I subscribe to geocentrism for the same reason for subscribing to the young age of the earth; it’s what the Scriptures teach. It can’t be proven or disproven scientifically, same as the age of the earth.
 

There are kinematics and dynamics. GR provides the dynamics via weird gravitational forces in the metric that go away when transforming to other frames. Philosophically then, GR makes geocentrism physically equivalent to any other centrism; for obvious reasons, if we see terms go away in other frames, we assume they are not real; but that is a choice we make. The real and only reason to hold to geocentrism is because of belief that such is what the Bible teaches. Physics and science will do what it will do; the philosophy of science will continue to make advances or go around in circles; but there is enough uncertainty and complexity here that one cannot say that geocentrism of one sort or another has been definitively disproven by science.
 
I've gone around on this many times in the past. A mathematical model (ellipses, rotation) is not equivalent to a physical model. Yes, one can come up with equations that describe a situation where the sun and universe rotate around the earth. But there is no physical model I've seen that can account for that much mass moving that quickly. Could God do it? Absolutely. He could also re-create the entire universe in each successive moment as Edwards believed. That doesn't prove that's how he does it, though.

All the geocentrist explanations I've ever seen take just enough information to support their case and ignore anything that doesn't fit it.

I was thinking this as well. From an engineering standpoint, it would be more economical to move a smaller item in 24hrs (the earth in rotation) than the whole universe in 24hrs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I subscribe to geocentrism for the same reason for subscribing to the young age of the earth; it’s what the Scriptures teach. It can’t be proven or disproven scientifically, same as the age of the earth.
The age of the earth is a historical question, and I agree that it cannot be proven scientifically, any more than the day on which Julius Caesar died. The present-day position of the earth however is subject to observation. I also deny that the Scriptures teach geocentricism; they of course use the language of the sun stopping, rising, setting, etc, but so do all modern heliocentrists, which I think shows that such language is not an absolute statement of belief on cosmology. By contrast there's no figure of speech that can explain the language of the Scripture that the earth was made in six days.
 
I think it is not keeping in good faith to posit that there are arguments, but not present them. That they exist on physical media is an undue hinderance on discussion via forum thread.

What are the mathematic models that describe orbital mechanics from a geocentric model?
Not in good faith? Scripture says the sun moves.

I gave you resources that answer your questions. The DVD series goes through all of the experiments and the scientists who conducted them. It is up to you and others to decide if you wish to explore the possibility that everything we're taught is correct. I simply provided resources for those who wish to look into it further.

I was never taught the doctrines of grace and believed I chose to be saved because that is what I had been taught. One day, the DoG were presented to me and ruffled my feathers, but I really wanted to look into it. Same thing happened with the pre-trib rapture. We can be taught a lot of error. I'm not telling you to believe what I do, but for those who have never seriously thought about it, these are good resources.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top