Featured Does the Earth Revolve Around the Sun?

or does the sun revolve around the earth?

Ptolemy: The sun revolves around the earth.

Copernicus: The earth moves around the sun.

Galileo: The sun moves around the earth. No, wait. The earth moves round the sun. No, wait. It's the other way.

Einstein: Both . . .

. . . and neither.​

 

It's the history of cosmology in micro.

Would it surprise you to learn that every experiment designed to measure the motion of the earth has failed? It surprised me. Hence Einstein's conclusions, which tends to be the view of modern physicists.

"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." Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.

"So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest." Hawking, The Grand Design.

Ptolemy, Copernicus, Brahe, Kepler, Galileo, the Church: all their cosmologies are equally scientifically valid.

One of Einstein's contemporaries said it is a matter of preference, not truth.

 

So . . .

If one had to hypothesize Christ's preferential coordinate plane . . .

 

What do you think of Galileo? What do you think of the church in his day? You think of one enlightened and persecuted, and think the other superstitious and oppressive. And why? Merely because of what you've been told.

What if it were proven that Paul was a geocentrist? And he most likely was, as ancient Hebrew cosmology depicted a disc-shaped earth around which the heavenly bodies revolved all under a solid dome. Would your faith in his letters be shaken?

Many, answering honestly, would have to admit it would affect their opinions of Paul, even for a brief moment before they shook it off. No real science nor technology is dependent upon the heliocentric view. It serves only as a philosophical litmus test.

See? It's neither a dumb topic nor unnecessary information.

Apologists spend a significant amount of time and energy explaining how Christianity can still be the standard and pillar of the truth and yet most of their greatest lights until the last 1/20 of its history were geocentrists.

On this board one of Calvin's most vocal detractors thought to deliver the death blow to Calvin's influence by citing his geocentric comments. Both Luther and Calvin were geocentrists.

One person here called heliocentrism "truth," yet the physicists to which he appeals say there is no truth to heliocentrism (or geocentrism) as both the sun and the earth could be assumed to be in the center of mass of the universe, and all observations could be explained.

So, I ask again. Would it surprise you to learn that the motion of the earth is only theoretical? It has never been proven by any optical or otherwise physical experiment. It surprised me.

 

Just quoting Einstein and Hawking, guys.

 

The point to take away from this thread is that if relativity is correct, there is no truth to either geo- or heliocentrism*. Just sayin'.

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/covariance

*it's not just geometry, but also taking into account the gravity and inertial forces of the known universe.

 

geo- and heliocentricity are equally valid coordinate systems according to relativity. Get with science, Preach.

 

Did the Son come to earth?