Another Article Against Geocentrism

[earl40]

Setting aside the issue that demonstrating there are marks in the account to suggest phenomenology, I have to wonder about "miracles" that only occur at a phenomenological level. If what is naturally (the nature of the thing) happening is but a chimera of appearing to happen, what do we say about the supernatural? Is the supernatural simply something that appears to be "way beyond" the appearance? Further, how do we adopt a phenomenological view of the Joshua account without first knowing how Scripture presents cosmology such that we can then claim something is appearing to happen? For example, Scripture defines the earth as round and the sun moving about relative to the earth. Unlike science, which is ever evolving and resolving past contradictions as it makes new discoveries, Scripture is not evolving (i.e., it is closed) so we should not expect to find contradictions in our closed canon.

Well we have Jesus casting out devils described in a nominalistic sense in The Gospels. In other words, it is describing miracles that were perceived in a superstitious way.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Setting aside the issue that demonstrating there are marks in the account to suggest phenomenology, I have to wonder about "miracles" that only occur at a phenomenological level. If what is naturally (the nature of the thing) happening is but a chimera of appearing to happen, what do we say about the supernatural? Is the supernatural simply something that appears to be "way beyond" the appearance? Further, how do we adopt a phenomenological view of the Joshua account without first knowing how Scripture presents cosmology such that we can then claim something is appearing to happen? For example, Scripture defines the earth as round and the sun moving about relative to the earth. Unlike science, which is ever evolving and resolving past contradictions as it makes new discoveries, Scripture is not evolving (i.e., it is closed) so we should not expect to find contradictions in our closed canon.

Well we have Jesus casting out devils described in a nominalistic sense in The Gospels. In other words, it is describing miracles that were perceived in a superstitious way.

Earl, I've been thinking about this issue, discussed in earlier threads. I have thought about it since the last thread- I can't see a reason to see the NT statements regarding demons (statements from the narrators) as phenomenological any more than than the OT statements about the sun's movements. But yikes, that's material for a whole new thread. I would love for there to be some more discussion about that on another thread. I couldn't ever see the basis for it.

 

[toddpedlar]

By the way, entirely separate from the discussion of whether or not the sun rotates around the earth or the earth around the sun, is the subject of our location in the universe. Our solar system, our galaxy, however it is structured, is right smack in the middle and the ample evidence for this is so interesting. We are not on the edge of a galaxy out in some rather mediocre region of the universe, we are right smack in the middle. The earth is special. You can be heliocentric while still knowing our general location is central, and that is scriptural.

I hesitate to wade back into this fray again after years of avoiding such folly. But it is manifestly false to say we are in the middle of our galaxy. Sorry. This is just plain contrary to clear and very simple observation.

 

[lynnie]

Todd- sorry to not be more clear. I did not mean that earth is in the exact center of our galaxy. What I meant is that our region of observable space, such as our solar system or our galaxy, is in the middle/center of the universe. Our galaxy is not out in some fringe region of the vast heavens, it is in the middle.

This is an important subject I think, because even if you are heliocentric it is worth reading the evidence that our solar system is in the center of the universe. Our galaxy is in the middle. The sun is not just one more mediocre star among billions of star, the galaxy is not just one more unimpressive galaxy among many.

 

[earl40]

Setting aside the issue that demonstrating there are marks in the account to suggest phenomenology, I have to wonder about "miracles" that only occur at a phenomenological level. If what is naturally (the nature of the thing) happening is but a chimera of appearing to happen, what do we say about the supernatural? Is the supernatural simply something that appears to be "way beyond" the appearance? Further, how do we adopt a phenomenological view of the Joshua account without first knowing how Scripture presents cosmology such that we can then claim something is appearing to happen? For example, Scripture defines the earth as round and the sun moving about relative to the earth. Unlike science, which is ever evolving and resolving past contradictions as it makes new discoveries, Scripture is not evolving (i.e., it is closed) so we should not expect to find contradictions in our closed canon.

Well we have Jesus casting out devils described in a nominalistic sense in The Gospels. In other words, it is describing miracles that were perceived in a superstitious way.

Earl, I've been thinking about this issue, discussed in earlier threads. I have thought about it since the last thread- I can't see a reason to see the NT statements regarding demons (statements from the narrators) as phenomenological any more than than the OT statements about the sun's movements. But yikes, that's material for a whole new thread. I would love for there to be some more discussion about that on another thread. I couldn't ever see the basis for it.

This would indeed make a good thread in that I believe phenomenological sightings, or a persons view point, should be analyzed with the subject at hand, and how many think demons literary directly controlled people like puppets.

 

[MW]

So if I understand what you are saying is that Joshua is simply stating he asked and saw the sun to stop...and nothing more? In other words, words there is no reason to believe one way or the other if the sun revolves around the earth or vise versa? Of course I think I am not reading you correctly and even if either thing happened, sun vs. earth revolving around one or the other, I believe either necessitates a miraculous occurrence.

You appear to be reading correctly. This is the method usually taken to defend the Bible against objectors. Louis Gaussen wrote in Theopneusty,

"The expression of appearances, provided it be exact, is then among men, a language philosophically correct; and is that which the Scriptures ought to adopt. Would you have the Bible speak to us of the scenes of nature otherwise than as we speak of them to one another in our social or domestic intercourse; otherwise even than the learned themselves speak of them to one another?"

I concur with this defence in general, though I cannot concur with it in this instance because it would serve to undermine the miracle.

 

[MW]

Aren't I correct that even if science operates with space and time in a relative manner, that does not exclude the fact that there might also be absolute space-time? I myself do not consider them exclusive. Relativity might make certain problems easier to solve, but it seems a bit hasty to build your metaphysic on it, as some philosophers do.

Metaphysically we come to face the same problems as Heraclitus and Parmenides. Do things so move and change that we cannot speak of things existing? or are things so absolute that we cannot speak of things moving and changing? Popper seemed to recognise that space-time leaves us with Parmenides' problem. How do things move on this model?

 

[lynnie]

https://www.amazon.com/Geocentrism-101-Introduction-Geocentric-Cosmology/dp/1939856221

A nice introductory book. Both evidence of geocentricity of the earth in the solar system, and several chapters about the central position of the earth in the universe. You tube has videos that explain better visually some of the experiments involving motion.

DVD......https://www.amazon.com/Journey-Center-Universe-Scientific-Documentary/dp/1939856523

Same author but very detailed scientific history with more visuals. Really enjoyed it. 2 discs, 4.5 hrs, high quality.

I especially loved this book, my first intro to geocentricity in an appendix:

https://www.amazon.com/Science-Agrees-Bible-Malcolm-Bowden/dp/0950604240

It is mainly about geology and evolution and all sorts of science subjects but he has a nice little section for laymen on geocentricity.

Martin Selbrede of Chalcedon (the Rushdoony guys) has done some writing on this, and I used to have a VCR of him speaking on it. Not sure if it ever got put on a DVD.

Truly a fascinating subject. Even if you insist on a heliocentric model, you might want to consider reading about our place in the universe. Cosmic microwaves, galaxies, quasars, gamma bursts, the Planck probe refuting the Big bang model.....earth is at the center. Science tells me so, in addition to the bible.

 

[Pmoon]

I haven't read this entire thread. so I don't know who all has made this point.

I'm not too learned on astronomy or physics, but I don't believe the Earth is the center of everything. A lot of people are referring to Joshua. Why couldn't God have simply stopped the earth from rotating/revolving? That works too, yeah? Or if not that, perhaps he could have made the Earth to spin at the same rate it revolves - similar to how the same side of the moon is always facing Earth.

 

[lynnie]

I haven't read this entire thread. so I don't know who all has made this point.

I'm not too learned on astronomy or physics, but I don't believe the Earth is the center of everything. A lot of people are referring to Joshua. Why couldn't God have simply stopped the earth from rotating/revolving? That works too, yeah? Or if not that, perhaps he could have made the Earth to spin at the same rate it revolves - similar to how the same side of the moon is always facing Earth.

God can do anything. (This thread has had a few subplots all going at once.) I think most Christians do think that was actually a rotation stop.

If you don't believe the earth was created on day one, and the sun moon and stars on day four, and instead hold to modern cosmology, you probably won't want to bother reading this thread.

Any discussion of geocentricity invariably has to assume a young earth literal six day creation view. If you view Genesis as symbolic and poetical it isn't worth even joining the fray in my opinion. (There are of course many, if not the majority, of young earth creationists who do believe in a literal Genesis and think on day four God started up the heliocentric solar system.)

 

[MW]

I'm not too learned on astronomy or physics, but I don't believe the Earth is the center of everything.

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son. Immanuel -- God with us. Size does not matter, contrary to the naturalist's principles, because there is One that is infinitely greater than all things. God's purpose and design is what makes things important. If one goes the way of naturalism, then all the best to him in his struggle with nature; I hope he has good genes. But I believe what God says: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth;" "and God said, Let us make man in our image;" "in the fulness of the time God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that are under the law." To believe the message of the Bible one is required to think in terms of special purpose and privileged place. Even if one regards the Bible as speaking poetically when it speaks of the centrality of the earth, he must still regard the earth as having a centrality which natural science rejects.

 

[Afterthought]

Physicists brace us for the impact of counter-intuitive conclusions. Once we learned that stars don't twinkle (contrary to the song we sang as children), we likely accepted that certain sensory information was subject to a different kind of verification.

Well, it is hard to say what is or is not counter-intuitive in this case. But if our conclusions work for heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, why not for the earth itself?

Note what Stephen Hawking said in his Brief History of Time (relative to isotropy but still relevant),

In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

In other words, the principle is held and utilised for the express purpose of ensuring we do not take an advantaged geocentric viewpoint.

I cannot find discussion of the Copernican principle/cosmological principle in a cosmology textbook I have, but I found some brief discussion in some lecture notes. The lecture notes do say that homogeneity is assumed because otherwise the earth would be at a special place. However, from what I recall, "special" merely means special in a physical sense. (Surely the earth can be special in other ways without being special in a physical sense?) In other words, the concern is that we don't expect the earth to be a different physical object than other planets, and we don't expect physical laws to behave differently on earth than elsewhere (or else the laws are not universal laws).

I was hoping to get Hawking's book at the library, but it closed before I got it, so I'll have to look at it later. It would not surprise me if by "special" in the above quotation you posted he means it in the usual manner, but he could be rhetorically exaggerating?

From the cosmology lectures notes and from my memory of the class, homogeneity was also assumed (aside from it making the equations easier to solve) because (1) one would otherwise expect to see rings centered around the earth (which we do not see) and (2) a homogeneous theoretical model fits the cosmological data better, i.e., there are empirical reasons to suggest homogeneity is a good assumption, although it cannot be proven.

This makes me wonder again whether some scientists are taking the science beyond the metaphysics that it requires and using it to further their own philosophical (and in many cases, theological also) agenda? I don't see how the assumption of homogeneity is necessarily a precarious assumption or necessarily makes the earth not special in any sense, unless I'm missing your point?

The same applies to space-time with a little variation. Space-time is ahistorical. You could not have meaningful history. According to the theory we are but a little pin on one corner of a day on the cosmic calendar.

I guess you have to preserve causality, otherwise there would be no science. But the philosophers of science like Hawking recognise space-time's dependence on ideology and its importance for making our history insignificant -- what might be summed up in Sagan's "lost in space" metaphysics. And I can see important connections with "big-bang" cosmology (I had almost said "theology," and probably wouldn't be far off since it requires deification of the creature).

Metaphysically we come to face the same problems as Heraclitus and Parmenides. Do things so move and change that we cannot speak of things existing? or are things so absolute that we cannot speak of things moving and changing? Popper seemed to recognise that space-time leaves us with Parmenides' problem. How do things move on this model?

I think I finally understand what your criticism of space-time is. The concerns are (a) it forces a "block" view of time and so nothing moves, and no events "take place," strictly speaking; and (b) it makes our history insignificant because our history is a small portion of the larger slice of space-time.

With regards to both though, I again wonder if more is being made of space-time than it actually requires in the scientific theory? And just because a slice of history is small does not mean it is insignificant, yes? The "block" view of time seems to be a literal interpretation of space-time though, so that may be a fair point. The only way around it is to understand space-time as a useful construct to show the connection between time and space that previous physics did not show, i.e., we should view the time direction of space-time as the direction in which objects unfold in time; hence, objects can move and history unfold. There probably is a way to get some "presentist" version of time that is consistent with the model too, but I am not sure, since I do not know what it is.

Are we allowing or disallowing the luminiferous ether?

Disallowing for the moment, since we have no empirical evidence for it (in the sense that, all observed predicted effects of that model are described by another theory that does not require the ether).

I'm currently reading Steven Weinberg's Explain the World, and he seems to leave the door open for this approach.

I got his book from the library. Do you happen to recall whereabouts he does this?

 

[MW]

Well, it is hard to say what is or is not counter-intuitive in this case. But if our conclusions work for heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, why not for the earth itself?

If we are already committed to a counter-intuitive model we can't stop halfway through our free-fall and decide we would like to grab hold of something solid. We have to keep going and hope our chute opens like it should.

The point here is that we have ceased working with anything of which we can form a mental image, and so it is transcending our rational experience. We are in the realm of faith and religion whether the physicist will admit it or not.

However, from what I recall, "special" merely means special in a physical sense.

According to the materialist, that is all there is. And from the biblical viewpoint, if creation does not refer to the "physical," to what is it referring? some kind of hyper-physical or moral-physical sphere?

we don't expect physical laws to behave differently on earth than elsewhere (or else the laws are not universal laws).

As with my first post, I take this to be a theological assumption. If we took the view that there is purpose and design for the benefit of life on earth we might think of "broader" and "minuter" things as being deliberately different like the back-stage is different from the front-stage. It may be that everything is counter-intuitive on one level so as to allow for intuition on our level.

It would not surprise me if by "special" in the above quotation you posted he means it in the usual manner, but he could be rhetorically exaggerating?

For him there would be nothing else, so there is no room for exaggeration.

This makes me wonder again whether some scientists are taking the science beyond the metaphysics that it requires and using it to further their own philosophical (and in many cases, theological also) agenda?

Probably "theosophic" would serve the purpose. The philosophy is driving the science and the science only allows that philosophical view to be expressed. Having excluded the personal God from the scientific method it necessarily arrives at a theory of everything which excludes a personal God. It is like Buddhism in that respect, and ironically with the same emphases.

And just because a slice of history is small does not mean it is insignificant, yes?

Your lifetime is a "second" in spacetime. Now if we factor in the religion of spacetime -- "the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be" -- how significant are you?

Are we allowing or disallowing the luminiferous ether?

Disallowing for the moment, since we have no empirical evidence for it (in the sense that, all observed predicted effects of that model are described by another theory that does not require the ether).

That is problematic. There is no evidence for the alternative, and it raises the problem of dark matter.

I got his book from the library. Do you happen to recall whereabouts he does this?

"The Newtonian Synthesis," towards the end of the chapter, beginning with the paragraph, "The success of Newton's treatment." Also of interest is the unpublished reference to Tycho's system, and the way it would work in general relativity.

 

[Pmoon]

I haven't read this entire thread. so I don't know who all has made this point.

I'm not too learned on astronomy or physics, but I don't believe the Earth is the center of everything. A lot of people are referring to Joshua. Why couldn't God have simply stopped the earth from rotating/revolving? That works too, yeah? Or if not that, perhaps he could have made the Earth to spin at the same rate it revolves - similar to how the same side of the moon is always facing Earth.

God can do anything. (This thread has had a few subplots all going at once.) I think most Christians do think that was actually a rotation stop.

If you don't believe the earth was created on day one, and the sun moon and stars on day four, and instead hold to modern cosmology, you probably won't want to bother reading this thread.

Any discussion of geocentricity invariably has to assume a young earth literal six day creation view. If you view Genesis as symbolic and poetical it isn't worth even joining the fray in my opinion. (There are of course many, if not the majority, of young earth creationists who do believe in a literal Genesis and think on day four God started up the heliocentric solar system.)

To clarify:

I don't believe we are the center of the universe. I believe we revolve around a star, which revolves around the center of a galaxy - which itself is a terrifyingly insignificant molecule of matter in the grand scheme of things. But that said, I do believe that all of creation was made in 6 literal 24 hour days. I believe Adam was a real life individual in history who God literally made from the physical dust of the Earth. I've no problem believing both.

 

[Megs]

Geocentricity Ordered Quotes For Anyone Who's Interested

In light of all of the topics being raised and discussed in this thread, I thought some people might find these quotes of interest or help:

http://christian-wilderness.forumvi.com/t569-geocentricity-ordered-quotes

 

[Afterthought]

If we are already committed to a counter-intuitive model we can't stop halfway through our free-fall and decide we would like to grab hold of something solid. We have to keep going and hope our chute opens like it should.

The point here is that we have ceased working with anything of which we can form a mental image, and so it is transcending our rational experience. We are in the realm of faith and religion whether the physicist will admit it or not.

Heh. The geocentrist model is also counter-intuitive though. At least in modern times, anyway, given that things like parallax have been observed.

It is a matter of faith and religion to determine whether one object moves around another? Or to determine if an object is moving relative to something? We can form mental images of bodies rotating and making other objects appear to rotate about it.

According to the materialist, that is all there is. And from the biblical viewpoint, if creation does not refer to the "physical," to what is it referring? some kind of hyper-physical or moral-physical sphere?

For him there would be nothing else, so there is no room for exaggeration.

Your lifetime is a "second" in spacetime. Now if we factor in the religion of spacetime -- "the cosmos is all there is, all there ever was, and all there ever will be" -- how significant are you?

Fair enough for the materialist or those who make a religion of spacetime (like Hawking). But I'm still not seeing how that religion is inherent in the theory; it seems like a particular interpretation of the theory, but not a necessary component of the theory.

So far as the biblical viewpoint, we recognize that man is significant despite being less excellent in being (Psalm 8)? That there are other considerations besides "physical" for that significance, such as moral significance and the favour of the Divine?

Perhaps I was not clear enough by "physical." Creation refers to the "physical," yes, but by "physical" I was referring to things like (a) the material out of which the earth is made is not fundamentally (quarks, electrons, etc.) different from the material out of which other bodies are made, (b) the physical laws that the earth and bodies on earth obey are not different from elsewhere, (c) the location that earth occupies is not fundamentally different from another location, and (d) (since we were discussing homogeneity) what one sees on earth when looking at the distant stars is not different from what one sees when looking on the moon, or some other place in the universe. Supposing all these things to be true, what inherently about this makes history insignificant (or significant for that matter; inherently, these things say nothing about significance), seeing how history was made significant by God's decree and works? It only seems to be insignificant if one imports philosophical assumptions that this is all there is.

As with my first post, I take this to be a theological assumption. If we took the view that there is purpose and design for the benefit of life on earth we might think of "broader" and "minuter" things as being deliberately different like the back-stage is different from the front-stage. It may be that everything is counter-intuitive on one level so as to allow for intuition on our level.

Interesting. If one did assume physical law itself to differ throughout the universe (so there are no universal physical laws), then what metaphysical justification do we have for finding even localized laws? How are we not stuck with disconnected mathematical equations, since we have no metaphysical justification for believing they can be unified; for all we know, they may be unified in one way in the U.S. and another way in Australia; or maybe they cannot be unified at all, since each particular situation the mathematical equation covers may be the "universal" territory of that "law"?

Probably "theosophic" would serve the purpose. The philosophy is driving the science and the science only allows that philosophical view to be expressed. Having excluded the personal God from the scientific method it necessarily arrives at a theory of everything which excludes a personal God. It is like Buddhism in that respect, and ironically with the same emphases.

Interesting point on Buddhism. Why do you believe the science only allows a particular philosophical view to be expressed? Are these physicists and philosophers reading more into a theory than the theory itself expresses?

That is problematic. There is no evidence for the alternative, and it raises the problem of dark matter.

If one denies relativity, there is plenty of evidence for the earth's absolute movement and absolute rotation, ether or no ether. (e.g., Parallax, movement relative to the CMB, Focault's Pendulum, Coriolis forces, stellar aberration, doppler effect, the earth's bulge, ring-laser gyro)

Evidence for relativity includes the detection of gravitational waves, experiments and technology involving time dilation, Michelson-Morely (which I suppose could be repeated on a moving truck on the highway, if one wanted to give relativity another test), no indication of physical law changing in different reference frames, no discrepancies in the solar system or in a wide range of phenomena. I could go on. How do these not constitute evidence of the alternative?

Evidence for earth's movement and rotation when one is not on earth (indirect confirmation of relativity) includes the satellite evidence provided earlier in this thread, the motion measured in the CMB, the making use of earth's movement/rotation when NASA launches rockets from earth in order to give the rockets a speed boost, the correct movement of spacecraft in space that assume and take into account the earth's movement/rotation, the movement of the earth when viewed from space, "the frame dragging effect" (Gravity Probe B), the earth's bulge, ring-laser gyro, and constraints on a small rotation for the universe.

Yes, there is the issue of dark matter. However, the ether is undetectable, whereas dark matter has indirect evidence (e.g., Bullet cluster). Dark matter also has indirect evidence in the form of the model allowing for a single cosmological model to fit a number of different data sets better than its peers. Dark matter is also in principle detectable (just not visibly), whereas the ether tended to move in such a way that it could not be detected.

"The Newtonian Synthesis," towards the end of the chapter, beginning with the paragraph, "The success of Newton's treatment." Also of interest is the unpublished reference to Tycho's system, and the way it would work in general relativity.

Thanks! That is very interesting.

 

[MW]

It is a matter of faith and religion to determine whether one object moves around another? Or to determine if an object is moving relative to something? We can form mental images of bodies rotating and making other objects appear to rotate about it.

What we observe by immediate sense and what we experience through mechanical instruments will differ in terms of consciousness. Direct objects of sense will behave differently to things observed by means of mechanisms, maths, and models. E.g., Feynman's "central mystery" of particles behaving like waves and vice versa. Once we strip off layers and look at things mechanically we will find sensory experience is inadequate, and rationality can form no mental image of the thing. One requires faith in the model in order to have a consciousness of the things perceived.

But I'm still not seeing how that religion is inherent in the theory; it seems like a particular interpretation of the theory, but not a necessary component of the theory.

It is part of the Copernican principle. It was a religious principle which people accepted before there was sufficient scientific evidence to support it; and the models built on the basis of the Copernican principle provided the scientific evidence to support it.

So far as the biblical viewpoint, we recognize that man is significant despite being less excellent in being (Psalm 8)? That there are other considerations besides "physical" for that significance, such as moral significance and the favour of the Divine?

This is the anthropic principle, and if you look at the science in the light of it you will find there is quite an amount of "physical" evidence for it, but to those who hold religiously to the "mediocrity" principle it would be "immodest" to accept any evidence for the anthropic principle.

It only seems to be insignificant if one imports philosophical assumptions that this is all there is.

That is well perceived.

or maybe they cannot be unified at all?

The commitment and methodology is religious by nature. You have to believe there is an unity and you must employ philosophical principles to connect things together into a coherent whole.

Interesting point on Buddhism. Why do you believe the science only allows a particular philosophical view to be expressed? Are these physicists and philosophers reading more into a theory than the theory itself expresses?

The "cosmos is everything" religion is quite seductive in the way it self-validates the scientist as an "enlightened one" or "genius." Perhaps watch Carl Sagan's old cosmos series, or the one recently presented by Neil deGrasse Tyson. Or even watch both to see the trends working over a significant time period.

If one denies relativity, there is plenty of evidence for the earth's absolute movement and absolute rotation, ether or no ether.

But don't you need relativity to remove the ether to begin with? What is the medium being disturbed to create waves? And can't your "evidence" for the alternative be used to support the existence of ether. And can't your secondary evidence for dark matter provide secondary evidence for the ether?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Um, hasn't the Earth been observed rotating by those in space?

 

[lynnie]

Meg- excellent.

 

[Afterthought]

Um, hasn't the Earth been observed rotating by those in space?

I don't know if any have seen the rotation in real time. The tricky thing is that those in space that orbit the earth are, well, orbiting. However, there are a number of images and videos on the web that one can look into, including images of stars streaking from the ISS (like the photos one sees from earth). Here is a video from L1 sped-up: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

Of course, the absolute geocentrist (of the non-conspiracy theory sort) that does not hold the earth rotates would just say that's the ether spinning the earth or spinning the space (along with the rest of the universe) to which the satellite is attached.

 

[MW]

Um, hasn't the Earth been observed rotating by those in space?

Place a camera on a fixed point of an aeroplane and film the land moving below.

 

[Afterthought]

What we observe by immediate sense and what we experience through mechanical instruments will differ in terms of consciousness. Direct objects of sense will behave differently to things observed by means of mechanisms, maths, and models. E.g., Feynman's "central mystery" of particles behaving like waves and vice versa. Once we strip off layers and look at things mechanically we will find sensory experience is inadequate, and rationality can form no mental image of the thing. One requires faith in the model in order to have a consciousness of the things perceived.

Alright. So from what I understand, the issue is not with the scientific theories themselves, but with the way they tend to be used, since the theories do not inherently contain the "theosophy" of their creators? The theories are "precarious" because they cause difficulties if one adds to them certain religious and philosophical assumptions?

The commitment and methodology is religious by nature. You have to believe there is an unity and you must employ philosophical principles to connect things together into a coherent whole.

True. But now we need a commitment and methodology that says the unity is localized and philosophical principles to determine the scope of the fundamental diversity of laws. To be fair, I know a few have advocated for the laws themselves changing over time. Perhaps it is not entirely unexpected for a few to advocate that the laws depend on spatial location also. Even supposing that the laws are localized though, the laws work in the heavens and on earth: they only cease to work for the earth itself, if one takes an absolute geocentrist view. Although I guess it is strictly an assumption, there seems to be evidence that the laws work for the region of space and time that are needed to answer the question of geocentrism or motion of the earth/sun.

But don't you need relativity to remove the ether to begin with? What is the medium being disturbed to create waves? And can't your "evidence" for the alternative be used to support the existence of ether. And can't your secondary evidence for dark matter provide secondary evidence for the ether?

Historically, yes, but the way experiments and theories have gone now, I am not entirely sure that relativity is needed to remove the ether. At the very least, the ether turned out to be undetectable both experimentally and in principle, so it would seem the ether is an empirically unnecessary object for determining motion. Indeed, that the earth turned out not to move through the ether would still need to be reconciled with the evidence I presented for the earth's motion and rotation; the existence of the ether would not automatically force that evidence to be indeterminate.

No medium is needed to create these kinds of waves. The electric and magnetic fields have their own independent existence. Of course, it may be asked: what is the evidence for this? I am not sure how much there is, but at the very least, the speed of light being the same in all reference frames supports it. A question could be raised as to how "aetherial" objects like fields can have energy, interact with things, and have their own independent existence. I suppose that is a fair question and one to which I have no answer except to point out that material objects also have wave properties, and yet we do not find it mysterious that they propagate without a medium. Otherwise, it seems to me (maybe someone else knows about better evidence) the only evidence that no medium is required is that no medium needs to be postulated in order to make the physics work: but this in turn seems to require Einstein's relativity....unless we postulate that the laws of physics are not the same in all reference frames (i.e., localized laws; odd how that idea has shown up here too).

Lorentz's ether is theoretically undetectable. I don't recall all of Bouw's ether except that it was omnipotent and seemed to conveniently do everything Bouw needed it to do (yet without proof that it could do so). Given the undetectability of the ether, it is difficult to see how any of the evidence I presented could be construed as evidence of the ether, although I am not entirely sure. If some ether theorist was able to prove (not just assert with words) that such things could also be understood as evidence of an ether that had consistent properties, then I guess such evidence for relativity would be equivocal. So far as I understand though, the ether is not necessary to explain the phenomena if relativity is correct; we see evidence for relativity; so the ether theory is unnecessary as an empirically detectable object; because it is unnecessary, I do not see how evidence for relativity can be construed equally as evidence for the ether. And in any case, the universe does not appear to be rotating, based on cosmological measurements.

So far as dark matter goes, the luminiferous ether just kind of sat there, originally. Then postulated to move in some ways. I don't recall it being able to interact gravitationally, so I don't see how evidence for dark matter could be construed as evidence for a luminiferous ether. As for other ether theories, I am not sure.

Having said all that, some sort of ether may be philosophically necessary, even if it is empirically undetectable. It is kind of strange to think of space and time being able to bend (if one interprets relativity in a literal manner), seeing how these space and time are supposed to be properties of objects. If one remembers the operational definition of space and time in relativity, perhaps this isn't an issue. But an obvious resolution is to postulate that "spacetime" in relativity is actually some sort of "ether." There is also an "absolute" reference frame in the CMB, and there is a "quantum vacuum" that could be thought of as an "ether." Perhaps it could also be demonstrated that a medium is philosophically necessary for light waves to travel. However, all of these ethers are very different from the sort that would be necessary to make the universe turn in such a way so that all our physical measurements make it seem like the earth is rotating and moving around the sun (absolute motion too, if relativity is disregarded), even though the earth is absolutely at rest and not rotating and not wobbling.


Interestingly enough, it appears that "creation science" now (recent article) has an "ether" theory of its own (with apparently some borrowing of ideas from string theory): http://creation.com/new-view-of-gravity

 

[MW]

Interestingly enough, it appears that "creation science" now (recent article) has an "ether" theory of its own (with apparently some borrowing of ideas from string theory): http://creation.com/new-view-of-gravity

Thanks for the link. I will have a read of it early next week if I can.

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for ether or any other theory. The point about the dark matter and ether is that it shows any "system" ends up with a great deal of unexplained matter. And just glancing over the page to which you have linked, I can see it is going to work on the susceptibility of gravity as something which has never really been explained. Physics will provide theories for how things work; it does not tell us what things are. For the nature of things we need metaphysics. And that is why I am confident I can hold by the Bible's description of things as valid in its own right.

 

[alexandermsmith]

Um, hasn't the Earth been observed rotating by those in space?

Place a camera on a fixed point of an aeroplane and film the land moving below.

I have to say that's a rather silly response. There are time-lapse videos taken from space which seem to show the Earth rotating.

However, what's the big deal? Why is this important?

 

[Douglas P.]

Um, hasn't the Earth been observed rotating by those in space?

I don't know if any have seen the rotation in real time. The tricky thing is that those in space that orbit the earth are, well, orbiting. However, there are a number of images and videos on the web that one can look into, including images of stars streaking from the ISS (like the photos one sees from earth). Here is a video from L1 sped-up: http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/

Of course, the absolute geocentrist (of the non-conspiracy theory sort) that does not hold the earth rotates would just say that's the ether spinning the earth or spinning the space (along with the rest of the universe) to which the satellite is attached.

I've spent some time looking at the videos on that site, and I'm curious how the geocentrists would explain this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs

Every geocentric model I have seen has the moon and sun rotating around the earth in the same direction. However, this video clearly shows the moon and sun rotating in opposite directions (if you assume the earth is standing still).

Am I missing something?

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

As an observer of the thread, and having just read through the whole thing, and having not really considered everything to be considered on this subject, I have an observation and two groups of questions.

Observation: the links of the videos so far don't show me anything that would hinder me from believing that everything else would be spinning around the earth. If the satellite a million miles away from the earth (L1) was spinning with the universe around the earth, the earth would, from the perspective of the satellite, be spinning. That doesn't help me conclude anything scientifically opposed to geocentrism. Whether the moon, or any other object in space, is spinning one way or another, doesn't change geocentrisms' stance based on what I've read or seen in the videos so far. (The radio waves was compelling though and no one has really dealt with that on the thread yet (unless I missed something)).

First questions: I'm interested in the question of the "earth stopped" so everyone would turn into a "flying bullet" and spin off the planet problem. If Joshua 10 is from the perspective of Joshua, and he commanded the sun to stop moving, and the earth stopped moving making it look like the sun stopped moving, and this would then cause everyone on the planet to be jettisoned into space, or something thereabouts, can we see or not see this happening with non-spinning planets in our own solar system or somewhere else that have apparent movement? In other words, if there are stationary planets anywhere that are moving around a star, is there anything flying off them anywhere into outer space? Or, are there spinning planets in our solar system, or in other places we can see, where they are not spinning, but don't have anything flying off from them?

Second group of questions, are the other planets in our solar system, based on geocentrism, necessarily not spinning around, and not spinning around the sun? Or are they all spinning, and spinning around the sun and geocentrism says that only earth is not spinning and not rotating around the sun? Can we see other planets in other solar systems spinning? If they are spinning, and we can see that, and all the other planets in our solar system have a path around the sun, how would that whole model of our solar system impact a stationary earth? Would they in fact impact us at any time? Would the path the sun takes around the earth create a path for another planet to come close or hit out planet based on their spin? It would seem to me that the other 8 planets in our solar system with their wobbling paths around the sun, may come into exceedingly close view to our planet, or strike it, based on the manner the sun revolves around the earth, but the planets still revolving around the sun except for ours.

I hope I'm making sense in my questions.

 

[Afterthought]

Every geocentric model I have seen has the moon and sun rotating around the earth in the same direction. However, this video clearly shows the moon and sun rotating in opposite directions (if you assume the earth is standing still).

Good point. I do not know what they would say. Maybe someone else knows. Perhaps they might say there is a ball of ether rapidly rotating about earth so that the light from the moon and sun cause them to appear to go in the same direction. Astronomy is actually not something I have studied in-depth, so I do not know if something obvious is being missed. I could ask one of my Astronomy colleagues next week, if anyone wishes.

First questions: I'm interested in the question of the "earth stopped" so everyone would turn into a "flying bullet" and spin off the planet problem. If Joshua 10 is from the perspective of Joshua, and he commanded the sun to stop moving, and the earth stopped moving making it look like the sun stopped moving, and this would then cause everyone on the planet to be jettisoned into space, or something thereabouts, can we see or not see this happening with non-spinning planets in our own solar system or somewhere else that have apparent movement? In other words, if there are stationary planets anywhere that are moving around a star, is there anything flying off them anywhere into outer space? Or, are there spinning planets in our solar system, or in other places we can see, where they are not spinning, but don't have anything flying off from them?

I think you are asking: Do people fly off of planets that spin or orbit? I do not know of any planets that spin or orbit without spinning that are causing things to fly off them. I think that the reductio to which you refer actually is referring to the stopping of the spinning causing people to fly off: not the spinning itself causing people to fly off. If the earth is spinning and was suddenly stopped, then barring a miracle, people would fly off. Furthermore, if the earth is orbiting and suddenly stopped, then people would also fly off. In both cases, appeal as to what would happen is based on a modern understanding of science, which would also say that objects would not fly off of rotating or spinning planets if other forces (like gravity) were strong enough to hold them down. I suppose if those other forces were strong enough, then people would not fly off if an object stopped spinning or orbiting; however, they would definitely feel the force of the object stopping.

Suddenly stopping spinning would be like a slingshot. Or if you want to observe it, you could place a penny near the edge of a disk, get the disk spinning quickly, and then suddenly stop it (I know there are videos of something like this somewhere on the internet); the penny will fly off. The case of the earth orbiting and suddenly stopping is more like braking hard while in a car.

Second group of questions, are the other planets in our solar system, based on geocentrism, necessarily not spinning around, and not spinning around the sun? Or are they all spinning, and spinning around the sun and geocentrism says that only earth is not spinning and not rotating around the sun? Can we see other planets in other solar systems spinning? If they are spinning, and we can see that, and all the other planets in our solar system have a path around the sun, how would that whole model of our solar system impact a stationary earth? Would they in fact impact us at any time? Would the path the sun takes around the earth create a path for another planet to come close or hit out planet based on their spin? It would seem to me that the other 8 planets in our solar system with their wobbling paths around the sun, may come into exceedingly close view to our planet, or strike it, based on the manner the sun revolves around the earth, but the planets still revolving around the sun except for ours.

There are different versions of absolute geocentrism. Some will admit the earth is rotating, or rotating slightly, but not orbiting. However, it seems the popular model is that the earth is neither spinning nor orbiting; the sun goes around the earth; but the rest of the objects go around the sun.

I think though that you are asking: If other planets orbit the sun while the sun orbits the earth, will those planets crash into the earth or otherwise interact with the earth on a geocentric model? The other planets (on either a geocentric or heliocentric model) have orbits that are either much closer to the sun or much further, so I do not think the planets would impact the earth on a geocentric model (don't know for sure though/haven't looked at the geometry/math).

 

[Afterthought]

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing for ether or any other theory. The point about the dark matter and ether is that it shows any "system" ends up with a great deal of unexplained matter. And just glancing over the page to which you have linked, I can see it is going to work on the susceptibility of gravity as something which has never really been explained. Physics will provide theories for how things work; it does not tell us what things are. For the nature of things we need metaphysics. And that is why I am confident I can hold by the Bible's description of things as valid in its own right.

I agree with all this. I'm actually not trying to argue for one theory or another; I'm trying to present the evidence in the best possible light, insofar as I understand it. I do think that relativity has stronger backing than the modern geocentrist theories I have seen, and there seems to be no conflict between the Scriptural data and relativity (so far as motion is concerned); indeed, it provides a way for there to be a true sense in which the earth rotates and moves around the sun. However, it is still an empirical science at the end of the day, and it could (likely will be) overturned to one degree or another eventually.

I am almost ready to discuss some things on the Scriptural teaching (but this will likely have to wait until next week), but a few more questions concerning dynamics/metaphysics. While I agree science gives theories for how things work, rather than telling us what things are (some physicists say, "Something fundamental is in need of no explanation." But a metaphysical assumption has been brought in here; and besides, the physics describes how the "fundamental" thing works rather than explaining what it is), how is the motion or lack of motion of the earth fall into a metaphysical category? It seems, at a first glance, to be a proper matter for physics: how things work? Is it simply because we could postulate a variety of non-empirically detectable entities that could allow things to work so that the earth only appears to move around the sun and rotate?

(As an aside: Isn't it odd how the "heliocentrist" has to argue that things are not how they appear to be according to our unaided senses on earth, but the "geocentrist" has to argue that things are not how they appear to be according to aided observations and observations from space?)

As a related question, what do you make of physics as searching for dynamics (as opposed to just kinematics), if anything? On the one hand, it seems the dynamics provide a metaphysics (or at least a search for metaphysics motivates finding them). On the other hand, it seems dynamics also only talk about how things work?

 

[MW]

I have to say that's a rather silly response. There are time-lapse videos taken from space which seem to show the Earth rotating.

Since you use the word "seem" in relation to the videos taken from space my response must have made some sense to you.

However, what's the big deal? Why is this important?

The province of the Bible to speak on its own authority; the proper limitations of scientific inquiry; the inevitable religious presupposition of science and the intersection of science with metaphysics -- to name but a few matters of importance.

 

[Douglas P.]

http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/DSCOVR/images/eclipse_epc_2016068.gif

Another video (gif) from DSCOVR providing observable, testable, repeatable proof of heliocentrism.

Too bad Sungenis' $100,000 challenge is no longer available =\