Another Article Against Geocentrism

[MW]

I accept the current Big Bang model, which states that the universe began 13.8 billion years ago. I also accept findings of radiometric data that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. Finally I accept the geochemical evidence that life on earth began approx. 3.8 billion years ago. So no, I would reject a literal-scientific understanding of six-day creation.

I am not "predisposed" to this view.

You might not be predisposed to this view, but this view is predisposing the way you look at a picture as conclusive proof of something you already believe.

When you reject the Bible you basically reject the religious framework within which you can properly understand anything about our world and human life on it, and you opt for the narrative of a false religion in its place.

Finally, I will concede that one who holds to a view like mine, that is a view of biblical accommodation, while still holding to inerrancy, must walk a tight line.

You might imagine you are walking a tight line, but from where I stand you have yielded the narrative of life to another religion. As Exod. 15 teaches God has triumphed gloriously. His narrative of life is to be chosen over the narrative of the Egyptian gods.

Although poetic, and beautiful, there is no way to understand the idea of a tent for the sun, rising from one end to the other with its heat not hidden from anything unless you have a flat earth with a firmament dome above.

Calvin on this place has grasped the meaning of the passage and might help you to escape from the bad influence of a false religion:

he shows us the sun as placed in the highest rank, because in his wonderful brightness the majesty of God displays itself more magnificently than in all the rest. The other planets, it is true, have also their motions, and as it were the appointed places within which they run their race, and the firmament, by its own revolution, draws with it all the fixed stars, but it would have been lost time for David to have attempted to teach the secrets of astronomy to the rude and unlearned; and therefore he reckoned it sufficient to speak in a homely style, that he might reprove the whole world of ingratitude, if, in beholding the sun, they are not taught the fear and the knowledge of God. This, then, is the reason why he says that a tent or pavilion has been erected for the sun, and also why he says, that he goes forth from one end of the heaven, and quickly passes to the other and opposite end. He does not here discourse scientifically (as he might have done, had he spoken among philosophers) concerning the entire revolution which the sun performs, but, accommodating himself to the rudest and dullest, he confines himself to the ordinary appearances presented to the eye, and, for this reason, he does not speak of the other half of the sun’s course, which does not appear in our hemisphere. He proposes to us three things to be considered in the sun, — the splendor and excellency of his forms — the swiftness with which he runs his course, — and the astonishing power of his heat.

The idea that everyone could see something on earth only makes sense if you already have a flat earth cosmology.

The tree symbolises the king's dominion. The "sight" of the tree is symbolic for the broad recognition of that dominion. It is not literal.

How else would you interpret Neh. 7:5?

"Heart" in the Hebrew Old Testament is the psychological centre of the person.

 

[Tyrese]

This sort of arguing is beneath you. The two statements you quote address completely different things. On the one hand I said that the Bible nowhere says the Earth is the centre of the Universe: it never makes this claim. On the other hand, one could reasonably infer from the account of Creation that the Earth is at the centre. I.e., we make that claim, speculating on the data we have; the Bible does not make that claim. It is silent on the issue. This is not going so far as to say that it is a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptural account that the Earth is at the centre; rather, the Scriptural account allows for that speculation whilst itself remaining silent on it.

The "data" says God created the heaven and the earth. The "data" says the earth functioned for three days without the sun. The "data" says that God causes the sun to move and to stop. The "data" says earth is a privileged place. The "data" says man was given dominion at the creation and Christ as the Son of man is Lord over all things in heaven and earth. The "data" says that man is redeemed by the Son of God assuming human nature. The "data" denies the fundamental principle of heliocentrism, which is the mediocrity principle. Is this beneath me? I am quite content to become a fool in men's eyes in order to be made wise by the Scriptures.

Absolutely!

 

[Bill The Baptist]

it seems that some of us have been convinced by the seeming success of current scientific models, however history demonstrates that many "successful" models have later been proven not to actually correspond to reality despite their "success." This paper is a bit long, but worth the read for those interested. http://philosophy.hku.hk/courses/dm/phil2130/AConfutationOfConvergentRealism2_Laudan.pdf

 

[lynnie]

Logan- I don't want to cop out on your legitimate questions. I used to spend hours on this stuff linking articles and You tube videos. There is just so much out there now to wade through. Maybe on other older threads here you can find links.

This is a starting point: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment

While M-M were trying to measure the ether, their zero value can equally prove the presence of ether and a motionless earth. ( ether being the firmament in many if not all geocentric models).

Sagnac is another guy to look up.

I just don't know how good the many many you tube videos are and I see some are on flat earth sites, and I hate to see people getting turned off because of that.

Major good authors to look for are Gerhardus Bouw, Martin Selbrede, Robert Sungenis ( good for laymen) and Malcolm Bowden on youtube. There may be others but I haven't kept up in recent years.

Some subjects besides M-M are Sagnac, Airy's failure. This is a very basic into page: http://mbowden.info/Geocexpl.htm

Barry Setterfield has papers on red shift.

Sorry to not do more. At this point I tend to assume people are so closed to geocentricity that isn't worth my efforts looking for helpful links. The links are out there though. Sungenis' book Geocentricity 101 is worth the money.

Every argument people bring up has a response from the science professor geocentrists, I just don't feel like spending days in books trying to explain it here. And the debunking of relativity is out there too.

 

[lynnie]

By the way Douglas......your old earth billions of years rely on a constant speed of light model. The Barry Setterfield model- based on actual measurements going back 400 years- of a decreasing speed of light on a parabolic curve, give young earth figures to starlight. Termed CDK ( speed of light decay).

This involves a biblical understanding that at the fall, when the creation was cursed- really and truly cursed- there were massive changes in so many ways including the speed of light and other physical constants. Creation truly fell. Too much to get into, but I throw out Setterfield and CDK for anybody interested.

 

[alexandermsmith]

This sort of arguing is beneath you. The two statements you quote address completely different things. On the one hand I said that the Bible nowhere says the Earth is the centre of the Universe: it never makes this claim. On the other hand, one could reasonably infer from the account of Creation that the Earth is at the centre. I.e., we make that claim, speculating on the data we have; the Bible does not make that claim. It is silent on the issue. This is not going so far as to say that it is a good and necessary consequence from the Scriptural account that the Earth is at the centre; rather, the Scriptural account allows for that speculation whilst itself remaining silent on it.

The "data" says God created the heaven and the earth. The "data" says the earth functioned for three days without the sun. The "data" says that God causes the sun to move and to stop. The "data" says earth is a privileged place. The "data" says man was given dominion at the creation and Christ as the Son of man is Lord over all things in heaven and earth. The "data" says that man is redeemed by the Son of God assuming human nature. The "data" denies the fundamental principle of heliocentrism, which is the mediocrity principle. Is this beneath me? I am quite content to become a fool in men's eyes in order to be made wise by the Scriptures.

No, what is beneath you is taking two separate points which I made and falsely pitting them against each other as if they were contradictory, when they were actually addressing different things. And let's not indulge in the over-heated rhetoric of being "a fool in men's eyes in order to be made wise by the Scriptures"- these things are not on the line in this discussion. You and others arguing for your position have categorically failed to show how salvation, Christ's Lordship and the authority of Scripture are undermined by a heliocentric viewpoint. The account of Creation is not intended as a scientific explanation for how the world or universe operate. Vegetation appeared on the earth before the sun was created, and yet we know that the sun plays an integral role in the life of vegetation. God is the cause and sustainer of all life on earth, of course this is true; but He also uses means for the ordinary operation of creation. So the fact that the sun was created a few days after the earth does not require that the sun revolves around the earth.

We measure time, days, months, seasons by the position of the earth to the sun and moon. Does that mean there were no days before they were created? What would that mean for six-day creation? And yet we have Scripture telling us that days existed before the sun and moon existed, yet it would be nonsense for us, now, to talk about days and years and seasons without reference to the sun and the moon. Which is all to say that when we try to make Scripture prove more than it does; to turn it into a science textbook, we end up looking rather silly.

The Bibles tells us that Creation took six days: Genesis tells us this, Moses tells us this, Jesus confirms this. The use of "day" in these contexts clearly refers to the 24 hour day. But as to the movement of the earth, the sun, moon, solar system: Scripture is silent. Joshua perceived the sun to stand still because from his perspective- here on earth- it did. From our perspective on earth the sun and moon do move. Something similar happens when Scripture talks about God repenting, or being angry: such things are, properly, not applicable to God and yet they are used because from our perspective that is how we experience the acts of God being referred to. I grant, of course, that there is a difference between a description of an historical event and a psychological understanding of an event (e.g. describing God as repenting of creating Man), but in both cases if we were to take the Biblical description of what's happening as it's literally written (the sun stopping; God repenting) we would reach a wrong conclusion.

When Scripture tells us something plainly (e.g. the world was created in six days) we must believe it; when Scripture remains silent on something, we must not be dogmatic. If it turns out I'm wrong- that the earth is still and the sun does revolve around the earth- then that would be fine. My salvation is not dependent on either theory.

 

[Logan]

This is a starting point: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi...ley_experiment

While M-M were trying to measure the ether, their zero value can equally prove the presence of ether and a motionless earth. ( ether being the firmament in many if not all geocentric models).

I'm familiar with the Michelson–Morley experiment and I find it odd that anyone would use it to prove a motionless earth. You can't look at it in isolation from the Fizeau experiment---Michelson and Morley certainly didn't.

The other site you linked to mentions the Sagnac effect as support. Actually, the Sagnac experiment provided conflicting results for the aether theory too. Yet this site is perfectly happy to pick one piece of the M-M experiment and one of the Sagnac and use both to support what he wants. That's either ignorant, or dishonest. The thing is, there wasn't just one experiment here, or even two, or three. There were dozens. Everyone was trying to figure out this "aether" experimentally, and they got conflicting results. Stationary or moving earth model, it was puzzling. Thus the need for an alternative theory.

And that's the problem I've seen with all the geocentric articles you'd linked to in the past: selective picking of pieces of experiments to support their hypothesis while ignoring those that conflict with it. That's supporting an agenda, not truth. Sagnac's experiment doesn't demolish relativity as the article says, actually Sagnac himself concluded "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source" which uh, sounds a lot like relativity! Stuff like these articles sound convincing until you realize they aren't telling the whole truth.

 

[Taylor]

You and others arguing for your position have categorically failed to show how salvation, Christ's Lordship and the authority of Scripture are undermined by a heliocentric viewpoint.

Thank you.

 

[lynnie]

Logan- let me reiterate. Both models work. Both models give accurate results for many phenomena. In that sense, some experiments prove both. What you claim geos do is the same thing helios do.

Th greatness of Einstein is universally admitted to be that he was able to explain Michaelson Morley and others, whose extrapolated results show an earth at rest. They were trying to measure ether speed, but the extrapolations are there. Consequently the need for relativity theory. As I keep saying, the debate is really about relativity. Heliocentricity needs and must rely on relativity theory; geocentricity relies on classical physics and how waves of light behave. You mentioned it yourself in the Sagnac quote above. Either the earth is motionless, or relativity is correct.

I feel like this is trying to explain limited atonement. I've read the works on it, I believe it, I wrestled it through and read the evidence and formed a conclusion, but rather than trying to explain it to a debater I want them to read some better things about it, better than I can explain it myself without hours and days of refreshing myself on it, especially the flaws with Einstein's relativity. If you ever want to pursue it, Sungenis might be the best start.

 

[Logan]

Logan- let me reiterate. Both models work. Both models give accurate results for many phenomena. In that sense, some experiments prove both. What you claim geos do is the same thing helios do.

Th greatness of Einstein is universally admitted to be that he was able to explain Michaelson Morley and others, whose extrapolated results show an earth at rest. They were trying to measure ether speed, but the extrapolations are there. Consequently the need for relativity theory. As I keep saying, the debate is really about relativity. Heliocentricity needs and must rely on relativity theory; geocentricity relies on classical physics and how waves of light behave. You mentioned it yourself in the Sagnac quote above. Either the earth is motionless, or relativity is correct.

Both models work mathematically as far as coordinate systems go. The geocentric model does not work physically unless you reject almost everything out there on space and EM. And no, the experiments do not prove both.

I'm talking about aether vs relativity and neither really has anything to do with whether the earth is stationary. Which was not the point of the M-M experiment and to say it showed that is dishonest. And you again seem to be under the erroneous assumption that light waves are somehow different from EM waves. All the stuff I have ever seen from Sungenis is confirmation bias at its finest.

I know this sounds harsh but I'm just bothered by these unsubstantiated sweeping claims that apparently come from much misinformation. But which are believed because they support a presupposed position, no matter how biased or poorly researched the authors. Why trust a RC apologist over everyone else when it comes to scientific matters? If it is so irrefutable then why do people like me who understand the technical details of what he is saying, find it so unconvincing? Because we're indoctrinated or because we understand the material?

 

[Douglas P.]

Calvin on this place has grasped the meaning of the passage and might help you to escape from the bad influence of a false religion:

he shows us the sun as placed in the highest rank, because in his wonderful brightness the majesty of God displays itself more magnificently than in all the rest. The other planets, it is true, have also their motions, and as it were the appointed places within which they run their race, and the firmament, by its own revolution, draws with it all the fixed stars, but it would have been lost time for David to have attempted to teach the secrets of astronomy to the rude and unlearned; and therefore he reckoned it sufficient to speak in a homely style, that he might reprove the whole world of ingratitude, if, in beholding the sun, they are not taught the fear and the knowledge of God. This, then, is the reason why he says that a tent or pavilion has been erected for the sun, and also why he says, that he goes forth from one end of the heaven, and quickly passes to the other and opposite end. He does not here discourse scientifically (as he might have done, had he spoken among philosophers) concerning the entire revolution which the sun performs, but, accommodating himself to the rudest and dullest, he confines himself to the ordinary appearances presented to the eye, and, for this reason, he does not speak of the other half of the sun’s course, which does not appear in our hemisphere. He proposes to us three things to be considered in the sun, — the splendor and excellency of his forms — the swiftness with which he runs his course, — and the astonishing power of his heat.

This is actually an amazing quote. Obviously I would disagree with his affirmation of the firmament being some sort of ether, but other than that, Calvin's argument is essentially what I have been trying to argue. He even uses the word accommodate!

 

[lynnie]

Logan-

Here is a link to a Time Magazine Person of the Century article. ( that person was Einstein). They are heliocentric and pro modern cosmology and relativity.

This article is by Stephen Hawking. Not Rev Winzer!


http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/27/relativity.html

You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether.

The most careful and accurate of these experiments was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887. They compared the speed of light in two beams at right angles to each other. As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light. It was as if light always traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were moving.

Let me emphasize this: As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light.

Ok, now people used to believe in the ether, a medium in which starlight travels. This is the geocentric firmament in which the heavenly bodies are placed.

The obvious conclusion was that the earth is motionless. If you can't measure the light coming from stars during a yearly revolution, the earth IS NOT REVOLVING.

This stumped science for decades, because they knew the earth really was rotating and revolving....even though geocentric models work perfectly, they were rejected on philosophical grounds.

So Einstein decided the concept of an ether was unnecessary. No firmament in which heavenly bodies exist. And.....

In particular, observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how they were moving.

This required abandoning the idea that there is a universal quantity called time that all clocks measure.

.....

Although the theory of relativity fit well with the laws that govern electricity and magnetism, it wasn't compatible with Newton's law of gravity.....(which) also required the Absolute or Universal Time that relativity had abolished in favor of personal or relativistic time.


On his return to Zurich in 1912 Einstein had a brainstorm. He realized that the equivalence of gravity and acceleration could work if there was some give-and-take in the geometry of reality. What if space-time--an entity Einstein invented to incorporate the three familiar dimensions of space with a fourth dimension, time--was curved, and not flat, as had been assumed?

OK Logan. We now dismiss Newton, absolute time, the laws of physics for how wave speeds are measured, and our 3D concept of space itself.

This article will assure you that science proved Einstein. If I wanted to bother to dig out books and articles by genius geocentrists I could explain why it proved nothing of the sort.But I am not going to bother. I spent a summer of my life reading everything I could get my hands on and the arguments on both sides, and I ended up rejecting relativity in favor of Newton. I am not spending days on this thread

I will say this again. Both models work. However, measuring the earth moving towards a star in October and away from the star six months later, the classic laws of science show a motionless earth. Or, you must adopt relativiiy, and throw out 3D space and absolute time. It is one or the other.

Dude, I was a college science grad with honors and I started my Christian life with a billions of year old earth, and a telescope on the roof looking at the moons of Jupiter with basic relativity drilled into my liberal brain. It wasn't easy to wade through this and realize what a leap of faith Einstein was. Once I read through the geocentric science, I was convinced. But I can't do that for you.

I don't see it as a salvation issue, but for me it was a marvelous inerrancy subject. The firmament, geocentricity, a fall where creation really fell, including light speed and the elements and all sorts of things. Not just our free will fell, but all of creation fell.

Nice dialoguing, and like I said, your questions are legitimate and the replies are out there. But I am not going to be the one to make them, it is just too time consuming. If you do read stupid stuff, that might be because some of the newer geocentric sites are stupid. I could say the same thing for some of the newer Calvinist sites as well. Read the older wiser guys on any subject and be choosy on the internet.

 

[Logan]

Lynnie, thanks for your time. I'm not going to reply further. Let me say though that I still don't see any substantiation for claims that there is no Doppler shift every 6 months around the sun (there is) or that relativity says that light behaves differently from all other EM waves (not true), or that you understand what the M-M experiment was all about. You say I can read geocentrists on it, but I don't really feel compelled to chase changing claims made by a fringe group.

Once again, the M-M experiment showed a null result. The reason this was surprising was NOT because it showed a stationary earth (as geocentrists like to interpret) but because it showed that the motion of the earth relative to the aether, was zero. The conclusion was that this showed either that the earth and aether both were motionless, or that both moved at the same rate (complete aether dragging). The surprising thing was not that this showed zero relative motion between the two (the model had already been proposed which would have explained this) but that this CONFLICTED with other experiments that seemed to show there WAS aether motion (see Fizeau's experiments, which Michelson and Morley replicated). The geocentrists can't have it both ways: if they are going to stick with aether (and use the M-M to prove a stationary earth) then they have to explain why the aether also seems to have motion at the same time. They can't pick and choose experiments to support their beliefs, especially ones which weren't designed to prove what they want them to (i.e., it wasn't intended to show earth's motion, but earth's motion relative to the aether, which has its own inherent assumptions).

Maybe relativity has its problems, I don't know, I admit I'm not an expert in it. But those problems would seem to be nothing compared to the aether model. The former is simple, works, and has predictive power. The latter is none of those, is formed of contradictions, and has to be altered after the fact to fit observations. This model is forever chasing its tail trying to modify itself as fast as it can to explain away what it can't predict.

No, I don't consider this an issue as important as salvation either, and I'm just going to leave it there. I'm glad you were a college science grad with honors.

 

[Afterthought]

From Hume forward secular science can find no epistemic basis for induction. The idea of describing things by their attributes comes from common sense realism's acceptance that revelation itself provides a realist foundation for nominal attributions. In other words, we could never understand things by their attributes unless we accepted the existence of One who has created all things, knows all things, and reveals to us what is necessary for us to know. If one denies creation and revelation one is left with the Heraclitus/Parmenides problem. And so far as induction is concerned, no merely human individual compasses past, present, and future, nor has the power to universally ascertain all observed instances.

Sorry, our discussion probably got lost somewhat due to time and how many people you are conversing with at once: I am not talking any more about materialist science or physics used by materialists to further their agendas. We had agreed that their views were not inherent in the physics, unless one chose to interpret the physics in a particular way. I am trying to think about science at its best. At its best, i.e., as conducted by one who affirms creation and revelation and acknowledges the limitations of induction (hence, such a person can understand things by their attributes), why is earth's motion or lack thereof an inquiry of metaphysics, rather than physics? We do not need to understand the earth in its essence in order to determine that, by its attributes, it is moving? This is merely determining how things work, rather than what they are?

By calling them "laws" do you not require a law-giver and administrator? And if there is a Lawgiver, would not His model demand acceptance? It would be a strange thing for a person to advocate a prince's law for the purpose of robbing the prince of his right to design his palace as he sees fit.

Perhaps this is a good point to start looking at the other thing I was interested in besides dynamics vs kinematics: What exactly does this model demand with respect to this issue? E.g., I can see exegesis for the sun moving when one is on earth; I can see an existence of a "firmament" (although what exactly that is seems to remain unrevealed); I can see a probable argument being made for the earth being at the "physical" center (not sure which center; what kind of center seems to be even harder to prove) of the universe (namely, the argument you worked through with Alexander), but I do not see how that is a necessary conclusion from the teaching of Scripture.

As previously noted, I am not a scientist so I cannot comment on different theories. I am only looking at the metaphysical and religious commitments of naturalistic science. I read the philosophers of science in order to understand their priestcraft. So far as the theories themselves are concerned, there is so much unexplained matter that it is obvious to me there must be prior psychological commitments in order for one theory to "matter" more to a particular person.

Fair enough. But dynamics vs kinematics is key to the discussion for those who reject relativity; hence, why the article in the OP focused on it. It would seem an absolute geocentrist would need to have some position on the matter in order to respond (all the major contemporary absolute geocentrists mentioned in this thread acknowledge the distinction and claim to have provided dynamics). When you say the theories leave much unexplained, are you talking about things like why mass causes spacetime to curve?

 

[MW]

No, what is beneath you is taking two separate points which I made and falsely pitting them against each other as if they were contradictory, when they were actually addressing different things.

You were addressing similar things but did not seem to realise it; I attempted to show you the relation between the two. I didn't think it was beneath me to try to show you something like that. I am sorry you are unwilling to consider religious authority in scientific facts. The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

And let's not indulge in the over-heated rhetoric of being "a fool in men's eyes in order to be made wise by the Scriptures"- these things are not on the line in this discussion.

Your ignorance of a fact does not remove the presence of the fact.

You and others arguing for your position have categorically failed to show how salvation, Christ's Lordship and the authority of Scripture are undermined by a heliocentric viewpoint.

Heliocentricity depends on the mediocrity principle. The mediocrity principle has no place in the biblical worldview. Heliocentricity gives it a place in natural science and science subsequently develops in opposition to the biblical worldview. But then men want us to understand the Bible itself in light of the mediocrity principle. That simply cannot and should not be tolerated. Where it is tolerated it undermines the real space and time in which the history of redemption takes place. Where the mediocrity principle is developed it squeezes the Christian religion into a small box of psychological need with little relevance to human life and society.

The account of Creation is not intended as a scientific explanation for how the world or universe operate.

It was clearly intended to convey facts about the origins of our world. Insofar as it speaks, it speaks truly and reliably. If you cannot accept it as speaking truly and reliably you basically relegate it to a piece of propaganda.

As the rest of your post depends on a minimalist approach to biblical revelation I simply oppose it on the basis that the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is. "Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created." I quote an old theologian to make the point:

John Edwards, Brief remarks upon Mr. Whiston’s New theory of the earth (London: Printed for J. Robinson and J. Wyat, 1697), 23: "we have no reason to quit Moses for Copernicus, but to believe that the Earth, though so small a Globe, is of greater dignity than all the Celestial System, than all the Planetary and Fixed Lights. They that discourse otherwise betray a great Narrowness of Soul and Meanness of Spirit, because they set a value upon Space and Quantity, and dote upon Room and Magnitude, which are of no real worth and esteem: but at the same time they undervalue the Order and Appointment of the Sovereign Maker and Disposer of the World, who plainly shows us the Transcendent Dignity and Superlative Excellency of the Terrestrial System in his allotting more Time for the creating of that and what belongs to it than all the rest of the World, and would thereby convince us that the Earth, as small as it is, is the Noblest and Choicest Part of the World."

 

[MW]

When you say the theories leave much unexplained, are you talking about things like why mass causes spacetime to curve?

No, I am speaking about the fact that they do not know "WHAT" they are talking about. They describe one thing by another thing, which is described by another thing, which is eventually described by the first thing. It is entirely relative; an human construct. They give names to things and require us to believe in them; then when we believe in them they dictate how we must live in relation to them. These things of which they speak are the creation of God. Human reason has its uses, but I am sure it has no basis for usurping the place of the One who creates, conserves, and consummates all things.

"But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee. Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this? In whose hand is the soul of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind."

 

[MW]

This is actually an amazing quote. Obviously I would disagree with his affirmation of the firmament being some sort of ether, but other than that, Calvin's argument is essentially what I have been trying to argue. He even uses the word accommodate!

You have been trying to argue that the Scriptures reflect the ignorance of the ANE world. You have denied what Calvin said about David being able to instruct the philosophers on a scientific matter. You have claimed ridiculous things like the big bang, the earth is billions of years old, Nehemiah misunderstood the heart, and God gave Nebuchadnezzar a dream which thought of the earth as flat with a firmament dome. If Calvin has taught you to think more respectfully of the Word of God I am thankful; but your words to date in this thread demonstrate you have no affinity with the approach of Calvin to the scientific matters on which holy Scripture makes pronouncements.

 

[alexandermsmith]

You were addressing similar things but did not seem to realise it; I attempted to show you the relation between the two. I didn't think it was beneath me to try to show you something like that. I am sorry you are unwilling to consider religious authority in scientific facts. The Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is.

No, I dispute that the Bible requires me to hold to the geocentric view. If the Bible is silent on a scientific question I fail to see how I reject Biblical authority in agreeing with the scientific explanation. You can try to dazzle me with your use of obscure philosophical principles which most people don't bother themselves with, and quoting the same passages of Scripture again and again as if that proves a point in itself, but that doesn't change the fact that you have failed to give concrete Biblical evidence for your position. And frankly I think you've spent far too much of your precious time investigating this topic and certainly expended too much passion in defending your position.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Alexander, have you read the whole thread? There was some discussion about why it's believed the Bible is not silent on the question of the sun's movement, and indeed that it makes a claim concerning it. Historically, the claim of heliocentrism, made widely known by Copernicus, was the first salvo fired against a claim of Scripture that hit its target in such a devastating way. (With claims of a billions of years old earth and evolution next up.) Until Copernicus' claims began to be widely taught, it was believed that the Bible spoke clearly on the movement of the sun, and that there was no hint of accommodation in the text to Israel's "ignorance" on the matter. Both Luther and Calvin were familiar with claims of heliocentricity, and both basically said that we must believe God's word and not the claims of philosophers (they understood that philosophy was the basis for speculation about the nature of these things; that understanding has been largely lost).

Reverend Winzer said this earlier: "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."

If you can wrap your head around the import of this statement on the dispute ongoing between the claims of Scripture and the contrary claims of modern (so-called) science, it will help you understand the use of philosophy in this matter. I can't keep up with all the ideas expressed in the conversation between Raymond and Rev. Winzer, but others reading, both now and in the future, will be able to, and it's an important conversation because philosophy is important. It's what's driving much of scientific theorizing.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In the link below, the author, Sibley, quotes from McMullin, E., Galileo on science and Scripture; in: Machamer, P. (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galileo, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 271–347, 2006...

“Principle of Priority of Demonstration (PPD): When there is a conflict between a proven truth about nature and a particular reading of Scripture, an alternative reading of Scripture must be sought.”


​

“Principle of Priority of Scripture (PPS): Where there is an apparent conflict between a Scripture passage and an assertion about the natural world grounded on sense or reason, the literal reading of the Scripture passage should prevail as long as the latter assertion lacks demonstration.”


​

The article dissects the two items related to Augustine's views and the Galileo's mistaken interpretations of Augustine, as well as offering suggestions to the believer when confronted with either scientific theories or demonstrated facts. Note from the article that the word "demonstration" implies "the true nature of things", not mere theoretical constructs based upon experimentation.

Worth a full review:
http://creation.com/lessons-from-augustine

 

[MW]

No, I dispute that the Bible requires me to hold to the geocentric view. If the Bible is silent on a scientific question I fail to see how I reject Biblical authority in agreeing with the scientific explanation. You can try to dazzle me with your use of obscure philosophical principles which most people don't bother themselves with, and quoting the same passages of Scripture again and again as if that proves a point in itself, but that doesn't change the fact that you have failed to give concrete Biblical evidence for your position. And frankly I think you've spent far too much of your precious time investigating this topic and certainly expended too much passion in defending your position.

The judgments of a man who cannot be bothered looking into the issues are no bother to me. As far as I can see no time is wasted on the Bible, its authority, or its interpretation. I am only sorry I don't have more time for it.

 

[Afterthought]

No, I am speaking about the fact that they do not know "WHAT" they are talking about. They describe one thing by another thing, which is described by another thing, which is eventually described by the first thing. It is entirely relative; an human construct. They give names to things and require us to believe in them; then when we believe in them they dictate how we must live in relation to them. These things of which they speak are the creation of God. Human reason has its uses, but I am sure it has no basis for usurping the place of the One who creates, conserves, and consummates all things.

Okay, I see. But now getting back to my earlier question: Why is it that science, at its best (as I defined in my previous post), cannot determine the motion of the earth? Why is motion a metaphysical issue? One does not need to know what a projectile is in its essence to know that it is moving; neither does one need to know what a merry-go-round is in its essence to determine that it is moving.

 

[MW]

But now getting back to my earlier question: Why is it that science, at its best (as I defined in my previous post), cannot determine the motion of the earth?

Given that science at its best is relative, any description of motion is only going to be relative to the system in which it operates. Natural science has no theory of everything. If it had a theory of everything one would have to question the verifiability of it, since there would be nothing left by which to verify or falsify it. This allows the sciences to enjoy a relative degree of experimental confirmation, but when you start trying to unite them they conflict. Incidentally, this also has a providential benefit in that the hindrance of unification disturbs the momentum of Babel-builders.

Relatively, then, I think we can speak of the "laws" of motion, but these can provide no absolute or ultimate explanation. They are merely describing a mechanism according to a model which we accept. When our Lord stilled the wind and the waves, or walked on the water, He demonstrated that these are not absolute "laws." If they were absolute laws He would have been metaphysically constrained to obey them. If they were absolute "laws" miracles would be impossible because a miracle would commence a new chain of cause-effect and signal a revolution. They are more like "constants" under divine providence, and this means that the Almighty "is free to work without, above, and against them, at His pleasure."

 

[Afterthought]

Given that science at its best is relative, any description of motion is only going to be relative to the system in which it operates. Natural science has no theory of everything. If it had a theory of everything one would have to question the verifiability of it, since there would be nothing left by which to verify or falsify it. This allows the sciences to enjoy a relative degree of experimental confirmation, but when you start trying to unite them they conflict. Incidentally, this also has a providential benefit in that the hindrance of unification disturbs the momentum of Babel-builders.

Interesting points here and below. You are saying that science is intrinsically linked to a system, and this system is man-made, not reflecting reality in an absolute way? I'll need to think about this some more to see how this makes motion a matter of metaphysics, rather than physics or sense. I agree with your points about the nature of scientific law.

For now, while I think: 1) We have images from space of the earth rotating, and effectively images from space of the earth moving. Indeed, even in an absolute geocentrist system, the earth would move when viewed from other positions in space. But anyway, we can see these images with our own eyes (mediated by instrumentation). Does this give us warrant to believe that there must be a true sense in which the earth does move and does rotate?

2) What do you make of what I said concerning the Scriptural data on the matter? Did I miss anything? I suppose I missed that some geocentrists quote verses about the earth not being moved to say that the earth must absolutely be at rest, but I don't see how that is a necessary conclusion.

3) It seems your position is as follows. The Scriptures teach "geocentrism." By geocentrism, you mean at the very least that the sun moves when on earth (whatever that means) and that the earth is probably in the physical center of the universe (whatever that means), along with the earth being in a privileged position for the sake of man (although all the details of what "privileged" means is not given in the Scriptures). The concerns you have with "heliocentrism" or "acentrism" are a) a reading back into the Scriptures of what is not there. This is an exegetical matter. The Bible nowhere mentions the earth moving or rotating, so as a matter of strict exegesis, we cannot read our scientific conclusions back into the text. b) That there is a false religion surrounding the science of heliocentrism, and Christians should not adopt its metaphysics that conflicts with the Scriptures. c) That there is a tendency for those who adopt "heliocentrism" to view the Scripture authors as unlearned while we are enlightened, whereas we ought not to do so. d) That in order for the scientists looking at the data to conclude against absolute geocentrism (although perhaps not against a relative geocentrism? If science is relative and motion is metaphysical, it seems there could be a true sense in which the earth moves), they must adopt philosophical principles that conflict with the Scriptural worldview. So a Christian obviously cannot adopt these principles. e) Seeing how the sciences are relative anyway and meant to be descriptive, Christians can still nevertheless work with these models without attributing ultimate authority to their epistemic or metaphysical claims.

 

[MW]

Does this give us warrant to believe that there must be a true sense in which the earth does move and does rotate?

We are back to sitting on the plane watching the land move under us.

You could explain the earth moving in terms of reference frames and call this "a true sense." You could base a great many things on it and I would guess it would "work." God has blessed man with dominion in that way, and natural science is an act of dominion. But at the end of the day I would still come back to the basic restriction on human dominion stated in Psalm 115:16. Absolute and ultimate explanation belongs to the Lord.

What do you make of what I said concerning the Scriptural data on the matter? Did I miss anything? I suppose I missed that some geocentrists quote verses about the earth not being moved to say that the earth must absolutely be at rest, but I don't see how that is a necessary conclusion.

Metaphysically the earth must move. There is only one unmoved Mover. If the earth were absolutely unmoved it would be unchangeable, and that is not possible for a creature. The fact it changes is evidence of motion. But the geo-static question concerns relative motion. If it is relative it is not going to address the issue from an ultimate standpoint; and given Mach's equivalence principle there doesn't seem to be a single answer at any rate.

The concerns you have with "heliocentrism" or "acentrism"

Your five points are a good summary statement.

 

[lynnie]

Just to clarify, any images from space will appear identical if the universe is rotating and the earth fixed, or vice versa. You can't accept relativity and deny this fact.

I have felt amazed to be honest that my quote from Hawking above- considered to be one of the greatest physicists ever, and an atheist- seems to have gone unnoticed here.

You would expect light to travel at a fixed speed through the ether. So if you were traveling in the same direction as the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower, and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion through the ether.......As the earth rotates on its axis and orbits the sun, they reasoned, it will move through the ether, and the speed of light in these two beams should diverge. But Michelson and Morley found no daily or yearly differences between the two beams of light.

Ether here would be space. Even if you don't think space is full of ether ( the dense firmamant), here it is in black an white from Hawking: We cannot measure either rotation or revolution. (The earth does not move according to Newton). When we turn in one direction daily, or we hurl towards a star in October and away from it in April, we cannot measure the speed of the earth turning or revolving by adding and subtracting the measured speeds of light waves. If the earth rotates and revolves the waves of light are not behaving like any other wave behaves ( sound waves, radar waves). This is Hawking for crying out loud, not some internet flake on a dubious site.

We are forced into relativity and the abandonment of classical physics, absolute time, 3 dimensional space, and a host of other things you can read about in the better geocentric books.

Rev Winzer, I admire your valiant effort to be true to scripture, but even if scripture was silent, the science remains. Either the earth is at rest, or classical physics must be discarded and relativity with all its problematic propositions adopted. I happen to think that takes far more blind faith than reading scripture at face value. The extent of deception first with Darwin and secondly with Einstein is mind boggling and I am sad to see my brethren so impacted by it.

 

[Logan]

here it is in black an white from Hawking: We cannot measure either rotation or revolution. (The earth does not move according to Newton).

That's not what Hawking is saying. He's saying they couldn't measure motion DUE TO AETHER. You are grossly and repeatedly misunderstanding this.

When we turn in one direction daily, or we hurl towards a star in October and away from it in April, we cannot measure the speed of the earth turning or revolving by adding and subtracting the measured speeds of light waves.

FALSE. FALSE. If these things can't be measured, then why are they being calculated and corrected for?

If the earth rotates and revolves the waves of light are not behaving like any other wave behaves ( sound waves, radar waves).

FALSE. I don't know where you get this claim.

More links could be added nearly infinitely. Just stop making these claims, please.

Just to clarify, any images from space will appear identical if the universe is rotating and the earth fixed, or vice versa.

Now this I do agree with. I don't understand why people say images from space prove the earth is moving. It proves a relative difference in motion, whether that is from you going around the earth or the earth rotating (or both) is impossible to tell without an absolute frame of reference. Thus Winzer bringing up the airplane. From the airplane's perspective, it could very well be sitting still while the world and air rotate beneath it.

 

[Afterthought]

Just to clarify, any images from space will appear identical if the universe is rotating and the earth fixed, or vice versa. You can't accept relativity and deny this fact.

Now this I do agree with. I don't understand why people say images from space prove the earth is moving. It proves a relative difference in motion, whether that is from you going around the earth or the earth rotating (or both) is impossible to tell without an absolute frame of reference. Thus Winzer bringing up the airplane. From the airplane's perspective, it could very well be sitting still while the world and air rotate beneath it.

The reason I, at least, bring it up is because I am exploring the implications of a realist epistemology in relation to the question, along with figuring out what the limits of absolute geocentrism are/where there is common ground, especially when relativity is denied (classical physics makes rotation an absolute motion; from what I understand, relativity makes the effects of rotation absolute unless we live in a Machian universe). I accept relativity's claims so far as motion is concerned.

I have felt amazed to be honest that my quote from Hawking above- considered to be one of the greatest physicists ever, and an atheist- seems to have gone unnoticed here.

For my own part, I only have so much time on my hands. For now, I prefer to spend it mostly on discussing metaphysics, exegesis, and clarifying what exactly is being proposed by "geocentrism" and let others who wish to do so (like Logan) respond to quotations and misinformation/misunderstandings.

 

[lynnie]

Logan- anything you think is a measurement applies to both systems equally.

I feel like you just are not getting it and refusing to face facts. Every single thing you claim is an experimental proof of heliocentricity and annual revolution APPLIES EQUALLY to a stationary earth and rotating solar system and revolving universe. Everything.

With a couple exceptions ( Airy, Sagnac, Michaelson-Gale) which prove ether and geocentricity, every single thing you call proof of heliocentricity is equally proof of geocentricity. BOTH MODELS WORK. Why can't you get this?

Here are quotes from Einstein and his buddies. This is a philosophic discussion, not a scientific one.

One retains classic physics and classic electricity, magnetism, gravity, time, 3D space, etc. (geocentricity). The other presupposes relativity and all of its implications. The discussion is not about any of the things you talk about measuring. They work for both (IF and only if relativity is true).

When we move to philosophy, we do get into scripture. Is there a firmament? Are the heavenly bodies placed in it? Why did everybody up to Einstein believe this? Relatvivity demands we eliminate the ether. Do you as a Christian really want to eliminate the firmament?

I feel like I am wasting my time and beating my head against a brick wall. Anybody who is willing to read the following quotes can draw their own conclusions.

( by the way let me emphasize the last quote I put on here:


“Always the speed of light was precisely the same…Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”

- Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54 (Addison-Wesley, 1972).)

Can you see how this is philosophical, not scientific?


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

"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems." -Albert Einstein

"We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance." -Cosmologist Fred Hoyle


"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."

- Max Born said in his famous book,"Einstein's Theory of Relativity", Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345


Already Newton viewed this as proof that the rotation of the earth had to be considered as “absolute,” and that the earth could not then be treated as the “resting frame” of the universe. Yet, as E. Mach has shown, this argument is not sound. One need not view the existence of such centrifugal forces as originating from the motion of the earth; one could just as well account for them as resulting from the average rotational effect of distant, detectable masses as evidenced in the vicinity of the earth, where the earth is treated as being at rest."

- Albert Einstein, 1914


The only question remains: are these forces by themselves enough to explain all translational motions that we observe from Earth, and can they reproduce the Tycho Brahe’s model? The discussion in this paper will show that the answer to this question is positive."

[...]

"But what is less known is that Tycho Brahe, Kepler’s tutor, developed a geostatic system that was just as accurate and elegant as Kepler’s: the Sun orbits around the Earth, and all the other planets orbit around the Sun. The trajectories are ellipses, and all the Kepler’s laws are satisfied."

[...]

"We can therefore conclude that the Sun’s orbit in the Earth’s pseudo-potential is equivalent to that observed from the Earth in the heliocentric system."

[...]

"If one could put the whole Universe in accelerated motion around the Earth, the pseudo-potential corresponding to pseudo-force (4.2) will immediately be generated. That same pseudo- potential then causes the Universe to stay in that very state of motion, without any need of exterior forces acting on it."

- 'Newton-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions' : Luka Popov, University of Zagreb, Department of Physics, Bijeniˇcka cesta 32, Zagreb, Croatia


"According to Einstein, the argument over whether the earth turns around or the heavens revolve around it, is seen to be no more than an argument over the choice of reference frames. There is no frame of reference from which an observer would not see the effects of the flattening of the poles. Thus in frame number 1 (the earth turns round while the sky is at rest), the centrifugal force is a consequence of the earth’s motion (uniform acceleration) relative to the heavens. This causes the flattening. In the latter frame, number 2 (the sky rotates and the earth stands still), the centrifugal force should be understood as being an effect of “the rotating heavens,” which is generating a gravitational field that causes the flattening of the poles. The two explanations are equivalent as there is equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass."

- “Einstein’s Ether: D. Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Galina Granek, Department of Philosophy, Haifa University, Mount Carmel, Haifa 31905, Israel, Apeiron, Vol. 8, No. 2, April 2001, p. 61.

"Before Copernicus, people thought that the earth stood still and that the heavens revolved about it once a day. Copernicus taught that "really" the earth revolves once a day, and the daily rotation of sun and stars is only "apparent"... But in the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative, and there is no difference between the two... Astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth... But to say more for Copernicus is to assume absolute motion, which is a fiction. It is a mere convention to take one body as at rest. All such conventions are equally legitimate, though not all are equally convenient."

- Bertrand Russell "The ABC of Relativity [ London: Allen & Unwin, 1958, p.13].



"No physical experiment ever proved that the Earth actually is in motion."

- Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, 2nd rev. edition, 1957, p. 73.

“The data were almost unbelievable… There was only one other possible conclusion to draw — that the Earth was at rest....“This, of course, was preposterous”

- Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76

(b) "Airey's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun". Airey filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the correct angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.


After the Michelson-Morley experiment:

“The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be only three alternatives. The first was that the Earth was standing still, which meant scuttling the whole Copernican theory and was unthinkable. The second was that the ether was carried along by the earth in its passage through space…The third solution was that the ether simply did not exist, which to many nineteenth century scientists was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism, and starting again.”( lynnie emphasis. This is scrapping the firmament (and classic Newtonian physics). Do you really want to deny the firmament of Genesis 1?)

- Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, pp. 109-110, (World Publishing Co., 1971).


“Always the speed of light was precisely the same…Thus, failure [of Michelson-Morley] to observe different speeds of light at different times of the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’ frame for measuring absolute motion in space. Yet we have known since Galileo that the Earth is not the center of the universe. Why should it be at rest in space?”

- Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54 (Addison-Wesley, 1972).

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

( and much more at link)

 

[Logan]

anything you think is a measurement applies to both systems equally.

I'll concede that, at least mathematically. I said that initially.

I feel like you just are not getting it and refusing to face facts. Every single thing you claim is an experimental proof of heliocentricity and annual revolution APPLIES EQUALLY to a stationary earth and rotating solar system and revolving universe. Everything.

Then you haven't been reading my posts. I have offered nothing in proof of heliocentricity. I could care less if you model the earth at the center or use the center of the galaxy. I'll concede that there can be a geocentric model where the entire universe moves away from the earth six months out of the year, and moves toward the earth six months out of the year. That is different, however, from what you claim, which is that there is no Doppler shift. That simply isn't true. I'm not refusing to face facts, I am just opposed to you making them up.

Ditto for your comment about light waves being different from every other EM wave. That's not a difference between a geocentric and heliocentric mathematical model, that's just plain false.

Let me put it this way: you say "we don't measure a Doppler shift one way for six months, and another way for the other six months". Yet we do. Therefore your statement is false no matter which model you are using.

I feel like I am wasting my time and beating my head against a brick wall.

Ditto. All I ask is that you stop making these claims which are false for either frame of reference (e.g., there is no Doppler shift, light waves are different).