Geocentrism?

[Mushroom]

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]

.
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.

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:

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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."

 

[thbslawson]

 

[VictorBravo]

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]

Sorry, I was trying to be thoughtful and respectful.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Logan]

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?

 

[Logan]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.