Earth Centered Universe

[Ed Edwards]

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Oops, i posted under my wife: Thankful's account.
I gotta remember to log her out and long
me in

Phillip: "I think I have just been insulted, but you know
how slow some of us Okies are. A lot depends on
what part of Oklahoma are you from."

Central part of the state, furterest from the bad
influnece non-okies

Yep, the earth is flat. I mean, like, no spice whatsoever

 

[Phillip]

Ed,
Can't fault you there. Go OU!!!!! Most people around here have a theory that the universe revolves around Norman.

I just finished spending six days at my lawyers office in OKC in what was said to be the longest deposition ever of a witness (me) in a patent infringement case. I think they were joking, but if Bartholomew feels attacked by a few people on this board, he needs to spend over a week with defense lawyers trying to make you out to be a liar on everything you say, including that Oklahoma City itself is flat. I worked at WKY back in the early eighties when they had the OSU radio network and I was the chief engineer at the games---loved it. Well, have a good day and tell me when you are ready to start your pyramid scheme.

[ November 02, 2002, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Ed Edwards]

Phillip: "Go OU!!!!! Most people around here
have a theory that the universe revolves around Norman."

"Theory", you should have said "natural law"

Phillip: "Well, have a good day and tell me when
you are ready to start your pyramid scheme."

Roger, roger! on the good day. As for the
pyramid scheme, i'm having a bit of trouble with
the perpetual motion machine. A bit of trouble
called natural laws or laws of nature. Seems
that in the TV operation it only picks up TV
signals that are 1200 years old. Well there
are no 1200 year old TV signals to pick up,
speaking earth-wise here. The automobile version
also has problems. I have to stop every 22
miles and pump the 12-gallons of gasoline out.
As you probably know, gasoline stations are
build to pump gas INTO a car not OUT OF a car.
Anyway, all the problems i'm sure can be ironed
out.

Which reminds me of a joke.
I asked God if to Him was not a thousand years
like a minute?
"Very so" said God.
And isn't to God a million dollars like a penny?
"Very so" said God.
So i asked God for a million dollars.
I'm going to get my million dollars
in a minute

 

[Johnv]

I think you and I may be a lot closer on theory than I am with others.

I'm flattered.

 

[w_fortenberry]

I'm not really certain what you are saying here. I do not understand your definition of 'heliocentric' universe. Maybe you could help me out on that one.

My point is that, while I am arguing for a geocentric universe, I am not entirely sure what type of universal model you are proposing in opposition to that view. All of your arguments have been for the heliocntric view of our solar system, but you had not, at the time, presented a universal model which differed from the geocentric model.

In response to my question, you proposed a model of an infinite universe. In which model, all points can be said to be the center.

I would like to ask you a few questions regarding this view. First, the Bible states that God created the celestial objects for the purpose of giving light on the earth.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:14-15

How then does an infinite universe fulfill that purpose?

Second, we can deduct from the red shift of light from distant stars that our universe is expanding. Can you explain that expansion in light of an infinite universe?

Third, our measurements of the CBR are not entirely consistent. They are too consistent for us to claim that the earth is nearer to one edge of the universe than another, but slight inconsistencies still exist. If, however, our universe were infinite, the nature of the CBR itself would demand that there be no inconsistencies. How do you explain this?

God is NOT limited and does NOT require the Earth to be in the middle of everything for him to be a personal God to each one of us. I think, being omnipotent, he is capable of finding us on a small planet, orbiting a star, in the spiral arm of a galaxy among billions of other galaxies.

I think we have been simplifying everything to the point where we limit God.

The mere fact that God is capable of finding us regardless of our position within the universe is not being brought into question. However, the Bible states that:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:18-20

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:17-18

How does an infinite universe "declare" the glory of God? How does it so well explain His eternal power and Godhead that the world cannot claim ignorance as an excuse? And how does an infinite universe so well explain God's glory and power that it is able to produce in men a faith capable of calling upon that God in prayer?

 

[w_fortenberry]

The shape of the universe and what's in the center of the shape are a completely different topic than the false notion of the universe rotating around a stationary earth.

Please notice the topic heading for this thread. If I am not mistaken it reads, "Topic: Earth Centered Universe." If that is the correct topic heading, then the question of what is in the center of the universe is very much a part of that topic, and the question of the shape of the universe, being necessary to determine the location of its center, is equally an important part of the topic. Therefore I ask you again, "What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?"

Since the shape of the universe is of no concern in regards to geocentric fallacy, I will bow out of that for now.

Please allow me the honor of laughing. One cannot propose a center unless one is able to define a shape. Therefore, an understanding of the shape of the universe is crucial to any universal model.

The only way to have a discussion on the "shape" of the universe is to introduce 4th dimentional references, which will only serve to more confuse the discussion at hand.

I am very familiar with hypersphere theory and would be more than willing to discuss any such model which you might propose.

 

[Johnv]

The two prevailing theories are the the universe is shaped either like a saddle (with the contents of the universe on the surface of the saddle shape)or like a globe (with the contents of the universe on the surface of the globe). Of course, these are 3d models that plot the universe in 2d. In actually, you'd have to up the dimensions by one.

I tend to side with teh saddle shape, but it's more of a personal view than a scientific one.

The center of the universe has so far not been plotted. However, since we know that everything is moving away from everything else (red shift), that we're all moving away from a center, We just haven't figured out where that center is yet.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I'm not really certain what you are saying here. I do not understand your definition of 'heliocentric' universe. Maybe you could help me out on that one.

My point is that, while I am arguing for a geocentric universe, I am not entirely sure what type of universal model you are proposing in opposition to that view. All of your arguments have been for the heliocntric view of our solar system, but you had not, at the time, presented a universal model which differed from the geocentric model.

In response to my question, you proposed a model of an infinite universe. In which model, all points can be said to be the center.

I would like to ask you a few questions regarding this view. First, the Bible states that God created the celestial objects for the purpose of giving light on the earth.

And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Genesis 1:14-15

How then does an infinite universe fulfill that purpose?

Second, we can deduct from the red shift of light from distant stars that our universe is expanding. Can you explain that expansion in light of an infinite universe?

Third, our measurements of the CBR are not entirely consistent. They are too consistent for us to claim that the earth is nearer to one edge of the universe than another, but slight inconsistencies still exist. If, however, our universe were infinite, the nature of the CBR itself would demand that there be no inconsistencies. How do you explain this?

God is NOT limited and does NOT require the Earth to be in the middle of everything for him to be a personal God to each one of us. I think, being omnipotent, he is capable of finding us on a small planet, orbiting a star, in the spiral arm of a galaxy among billions of other galaxies.

I think we have been simplifying everything to the point where we limit God.

The mere fact that God is capable of finding us regardless of our position within the universe is not being brought into question. However, the Bible states that:

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.
Psalm 19:1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Romans 1:18-20

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.
Romans 10:17-18

How does an infinite universe "declare" the glory of God? How does it so well explain His eternal power and Godhead that the world cannot claim ignorance as an excuse? And how does an infinite universe so well explain God's glory and power that it is able to produce in men a faith capable of calling upon that God in prayer?</font>[/QUOTE]First of all, my theory of an infinite universe is far from actually being a theory, it is just a line of thinking. I only proposed that model to indicate that of a theoretical universe with no center. Since God is obviously infinite in his capabilities, why not his handiwork.

As far as light for the Earth is found in the Bible I agree with you, but again, that is His point of view to man. We already know from the Hubble and many other optical and radio telescopes that there are literally millions of stars that are invisible to the naked eye, therefore not providing light for Earth.

Another point, 'red-shift'. The Bible indicates that God stretched the creation. Whether space is limited in size or infinite, the red-shift doppler effect would and could be possible.

But, please, do not assume just because I discussed it that I believe in an infinite universe, because my experience is solar-system guidance related, and most of that near Earth sub-orbital and orbital. As mentioned earlier voyager is far enough out to show our solar system as a 'Sun' centered, planet orbiting system. With the system located in a spiral arm of the galaxy. There are too many problems with a solar system rotating at a 24 hour period. This is not to say that Earth is not close to the center of the universe, we simply do not know, but we do know by observation that the Earth rotates at a 24 hour period, the moon orbits at the correct speed for its distance, and physics will not indicate a 24 hour period spacial rotation that will appear to look the same. An extremely simple model might work, but once the intense math starts it falls apart.

 

[Johnv]

If memory serves, my previous post about a "saddle" shaped universe is what you're referring to an infinite universe. I happen to agree with this, as I said earlier, since an infinite universe would point to a single beginning at a single point (in the beginning).

 

[Phillip]

JohnV

Doesn't the saddle shaped infinite universe fit with a theory that Einstein proposed where he stated that if a person (or spaceship) could continue in a straight line for a LONG period of time that it would eventually wind up back at its starting point?

 

[Johnv]

I don't think the saddle shape fits into that one, probably the globe shape fits into that better. But I'm admittedly not too familiar with Einstein's views on the subject of universe shape.

 

[w_fortenberry]

Phillip,

Before I respond to your answers, could you please confirm whether or not you can provide answers to the two questions which you appear to have overlooked?

They are...

Third, our measurements of the CBR are not entirely consistent. They are too consistent for us to claim that the earth is nearer to one edge of the universe than another, but slight inconsistencies still exist. If, however, our universe were infinite, the nature of the CBR itself would demand that there be no inconsistencies. How do you explain this?

...and...

How does an infinite universe "declare" the glory of God? How does it so well explain His eternal power and Godhead that the world cannot claim ignorance as an excuse? And how does an infinite universe so well explain God's glory and power that it is able to produce in men a faith capable of calling upon that God in prayer?

 

[w_fortenberry]

John,

You have proposed a saddle shaped universe consiting of at least four dimensions. In light of this model, can you answer the questions that I presented to Phillip?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Phillip,

Before I respond to your answers, could you please confirm whether or not you can provide answers to the two questions which you appear to have overlooked?

They are...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Third, our measurements of the CBR are not entirely consistent. They are too consistent for us to claim that the earth is nearer to one edge of the universe than another, but slight inconsistencies still exist. If, however, our universe were infinite, the nature of the CBR itself would demand that there be no inconsistencies. How do you explain this?

...and...

How does an infinite universe "declare" the glory of God? How does it so well explain His eternal power and Godhead that the world cannot claim ignorance as an excuse? And how does an infinite universe so well explain God's glory and power that it is able to produce in men a faith capable of calling upon that God in prayer?

</font>[/QUOTE]I think I have answered both of these questions with the fact that my 'hypothesis' of an infinite universe is far from a 'theory' because my knowledge is limited to solar system navigation systems and not to theoretical or studies of the universe as an entire system. So, therefore, I guess that I cannot give you an answer to either question that would be considered to be more than just 'hypothetical' or more to the point: 'thinking aloud'.

Regarding the second question. My responses were also 'hypothetical' that it is 'possible' that an omnipotent God is capable of creating a universe that is inifinite in size. To me, I would think, it would further show or indicate the true unlimited power of God.

Finally, my entire argument on this board is based on the fact that it is impossible for the universe (regardless of shape or size, although we know it is huge) to orbit the Earth in 24 hours, nor would the Earth be in the center with the Sun revolving around it. The physics nor practical application of orbital theory would not work regardless of how many times someone says that it is all relative. The bottom line is the Earth orbits the Sun and this results in the effects on space-guidance (even near space orbits) etc. exactly as would be predicted. A sun orbiting model will not work. The rest of my discussions about the entire universe were just that, discussions. I guess the Earth could be very close to the center of the universe, since I don't think any scientist today really knows where the center is, but the thought of the Earth remaining fixed in space is not realistic from either a theoretical or realistic point of view.

[ November 06, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Paul of Eugene]

For W_Fortenberry:

As for the universe declaring the glory of God, as I interpret that verse, I don't see any particular view of the universe's nature being relevant to how the universe does that, whether in the greatests distances it curves back on itself or continues infinitely - how could that make a difference in declaring the greatness of God? But rather, I see the psalmist vindicated when God's Spirit takes occasion to approach the human spirit, using the greatness of creation as an example to convince the soul of the greatness of God, the reality of the universe to convince the soul of the reality of God. It is not a logical debate that the universe engages us in, it is rather a great impression, a vast impact, which God can then use to bring us to Him.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Paul of Eugene:
For W_Fortenberry:

As for the universe declaring the glory of God, as I interpret that verse, I don't see any particular view of the universe's nature being relevant to how the universe does that, whether in the greatests distances it curves back on itself or continues infinitely - how could that make a difference in declaring the greatness of God? But rather, I see the psalmist vindicated when God's Spirit takes occasion to approach the human spirit, using the greatness of creation as an example to convince the soul of the greatness of God, the reality of the universe to convince the soul of the reality of God. It is not a logical debate that the universe engages us in, it is rather a great impression, a vast impact, which God can then use to bring us to Him.

Thank you for a very articulate description. Today, I seem to be having difficulty somewhere between my brain and computer keys.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
I think I have answered both of these questions with the fact that my 'hypothesis' of an infinite universe is far from a 'theory' because my knowledge is limited to solar system navigation systems and not to theoretical or studies of the universe as an entire system.

Although not wanting to get back into the debate, this statement shows why you were unable to accept the geocentric position I advocated. The system I propose works because the universe is an entire system. As Ernst Mach observed, the universe as a whole produces the effects so often interpreted as being due to the earth's rotation. I thank you for your honesty, Philip.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
I think I have answered both of these questions with the fact that my 'hypothesis' of an infinite universe is far from a 'theory' because my knowledge is limited to solar system navigation systems and not to theoretical or studies of the universe as an entire system.

Although not wanting to get back into the debate, this statement shows why you were unable to accept the geocentric position I advocated. The system I propose works because the universe is an entire system. As Ernst Mach observed, the universe as a whole produces the effects so often interpreted as being due to the earth's rotation. I thank you for your honesty, Philip.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew</font>[/QUOTE]Just can't stay out of it. haha--well, I can't say that I blame you these debates can be pretty addictive.

Maybe you can help me. You posted some links on Mach's theories and some other thinks relating to geocentric theories and I looked for over an hour through the Extra-terrestrial postings and could not find them. I'm using a dial-up and a slow laptop so speed is not a luxury I have available. Would you mind either posting or sending me of the locations for some of the latest papers regarding the theory? I would appreciate it.
THX

 

[w_fortenberry]

Phillip,

But, please, do not assume just because I discussed it that I believe in an infinite universe, because my experience is solar-system guidance related, and most of that near Earth sub-orbital and orbital.

I think I have answered both of these questions with the fact that my 'hypothesis' of an infinite universe is far from a 'theory' because my knowledge is limited to solar system navigation systems and not to theoretical or studies of the universe as an entire system.

Thank you for this admission. I was under the impression that you were claiming to be an expert in cosmology simply because you helped design the guidance systems of some satelites. All of the questions which I asked were designed to show that you were not considering the universe as an entire system. To demonstrate why it is necessary to view the universe as such, allow me to ask you another question about which you may be more familiar.

When Copernicus put forth his heliocentric model, he depicted all the planets travelling around the sun in perfectly circular orbits. He chose to use circular orbits "because everything in the world is delimited by this form." In other words, unless acted upon by some opposing force, any orbiting body will naturally assume a circular path around the object orbited. Why then do the planetary orbits form eliptics and not the circles which Copernicus suggested?

 

[w_fortenberry]

Would anyone like to continue this debate?

The question of the moment is, "Why then do the planetary orbits form eliptics and not the circles which Copernicus suggested?"

Is anyone able to answer this question?