Featured Heliocentricity: What's It Good For?

Now that we know what Relativity really teaches, that heliocentricity and geocentricity are really just different, equally valid frames of reference, and that no one has really proven that the earth moves in relation to the sun or vice versa, I ask again:

Heliocentricity: What's it good for?

 

It's good for doctrine. That's all.

 

To which I replied . . .

And I did look into it, and I am the one who found out that the heliocentric model is not the scientific certainty that I thought it was. That doesn't make the geocentric model any more certain, but it certainly has neutralized the hermeneutics based on heliocentricity.

 

I'm not convinced of a stationary earth. Quite frankly, I've been raised to think otherwise, and, everything else we can see would suggest that the earth is in orbit around the sun, but that's assuming God did not place the earth in the center of the universe.

And that's an assumption only.

But the implications are huge. The motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty.

 

The very definition of "miracle" is an interference or suspension of natural laws. It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun. I could just as easily ask what kept the sun in the sky? The best evidence is that it is stated the sun stopped. If it was really the earth that stopped, why not just state it that way?

That's the question.

 

That's what I'm asking the self-assured relativists on the board.

 

But the book of Joshua can be easily dismissed as indirect communication from God, and therefore not scientifically or even historically viable.

So one would do better with a direct quote of Christ, who said His Father maketh His sun to rise. If the reality is that the earth is moving us into the sunlight, why not say it that way?

 

I'll try this again:

ITL says, "The earth goes round the sun. It's a scientific certainty."
Scientists say, "No it isn't."
ITL: Our observations prove it.
Einstein: The motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical means.
ITL-ilk: What about ballistics, Coriolis, the Foucault Pendulum?
Einstein: The motion of the earth cannot be proven by any terrestrial based experiment.

So, I'll amend my statements. Scientists say the motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty. I've posted enough documentation. You say the earth goes round the sun. Great. I get it. But the only reason you think you know that is because of what you were told that scientists have said.

Because of Relativity, you're behind the times—according to scientists.

Not according to Aaron. Your beef is with them.

 

Whatever. I'm sure you've independently established all the postulates of the theories of Relativity with your own experiments and you don't need to read the works of scientists to know anything.

No one is saying the motion of the earth can't explain anything. They're saying one can assume the earth to be at rest and still explain (not merely calculate) the observations according to the theories.

They're saying that. Not me. Do you think that retrograde motion and parallax phenomena are unknown to these guys? Heck, the only reason YOU know anything about it is because of what you've read, and what you've been told. That's it.

And now that you're finding out that the very ones who are telling you that the earth moves, are the very ones who say that a motionless earth can be equally justified by the laws of physics as they now stand, and by the theories you think have been fully established and are the true reality, you got your panties in a bind and say that I need to be able to justify their sayings.

Well I don't.

Now, why don't you answer the question. If the reality is that the earth carries us into the light of the sun, why didn't Christ just say it that way?

 

Meant to say : It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the sun that stopped and not the earth.

 

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
http://www.icr.org/article/geocentricity-creation/
​

Oh, wait. They just didn't have Cassidy and co. to illuminate them. It has been proven true. They know that because . . . um . . . they've read some books.

Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate . . . According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred Hoyle, as follows:

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.
​

[ibid]
​

So, again, no one here is saying the earth doesn't move (except revmwc), the statement has been that scientists say the motion of the earth has not been proven by experiment, and a proper understanding of the theories of relativity allow the geocentric point of view as a scientifically valid model of reality equal to that of the heliocentric model.

They're saying that. Einstein said it. Hawking says it. The doctor who wrote the cited article is saying it.

But I'll take Cassidy and co. over them, because they've read some books.

​

 

But Cassidy and co. also claim to believe and understand the Scriptures. This is where revwmc has you guys by the boys:

If the reality is that the earth moves, why didn't Christ say just say it that way?

A) Christ did not know better.
B) Christ condescended to the ignorance and superstition of His disciples.
C) Christ was speaking in relative terms.​