Geocentrism?

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.....

 

[CJW]

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

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

 

[MW]

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]

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

Why restrain yourself, Richard?

 

[Philip]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

And, Scott, what precisely IS gravity?

 

[Tirian]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.