Earth Centered Universe

[Phillip]

Well, we got way off subject when discussing extraterrestrials and I think this subject has to do with Biblical doctrine, so I am posting a new subject to further discuss this interesting theory of an Earth centered universe.

Two questions that I never did receive answers for were:

1. I described the boost given to spacecrafts fired to the East due to the Earth's rotation and was told that this was a 'relative' effect because space around the Earth is rotating. --Back to the ole Aether theory. I propose a question: If this is true, where does the space stop rotating, just above the atmosphere and if it is then particles will all be moving in the same direction at a high rate of speed, not necessarily just orbital velocities. If this effect goes to the surface of the Earth then the atmosphere would be carried with it and would circle the Earth every 24 hours. If it goes to the center of the Earth then the Earth itself would be effected. So, where does this rotation of space end in relation to the Earth?

The second question is that the rotation of the universe will reach the speed of light in less than one light year and even with theories of space warping theories this is a real stretch. Explain the speed of a star at 200 lightyears away and one 2 lightyears away. How fast would each be moving and how would they stay synchronized since it takes 200 years for light to reach Earth from one and only 2 years for the other?

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Two questions that I never did receive answers for were:

[cut]...If this is true, where does the space stop rotating, just above the atmosphere and if it is then particles will all be moving in the same direction at a high rate of speed, not necessarily just orbital velocities.

Sorry, Philip, but you did get an answer!:

written by Bartholomew on page 10 of the ETs thread:
Take your conventional modern astronomical picture: where (how far up) does the earth stop rotating? Wherever it is, that is the same place where (in the geocentric model) the universe stops rotating.

Basically, when I say 'the universe' I mean all the bodies within the 'second heaven' - i.e. everywhere between the third heaven (where God resides) and the first heaven (the atmosphere). The universe's rotation causes forces on the earth, which change a pendulum's swing, deal with those "problems" for rockets, etc., and which change as you get further from the earth, to the same extent as the modern view explains these effects.

The second question is that the rotation of the universe will reach the speed of light in less than one light year and even with theories of space warping theories this is a real stretch. Explain the speed of a star at 200 lightyears away and one 2 lightyears away. How fast would each be moving and how would they stay synchronized since it takes 200 years for light to reach Earth from one and only 2 years for the other?

I answered the premise behind this question, too:

Written by Bartholomew on page 10 of the ETs thread, as before:
As you go out in the universe, the faster the stars, etc., travel (relative to the earth) in order to continue this constant angular speed (just as atoms of the outer-edge of a round-about travel faster than those of the central part). Thus the speed of light (relative to the earth) increases the furter out you go, along with the speed of the universe. However, since the distant stars are (more or less) still with respect to each other, and since the speed of light is true relative to these, then the speed of light remains constant with respect to the universe as a whole.

OK, I didn't want to start with science jargon, but I think I'll have to. Imagaine the universe as a shphere. As it rotates, its (instantaneous) velocity is always perpendicular to the radius of the sphere. That means there is zero component of the velocity along the radius. So, the speed of waves propogated along a radius (i.e. towards the centre - i.e. the earth in the universe's case) will be totally unaffected by the rotation of the sphere (universe). Also, the speed of waves propogated in any direction will be the same relative to the sphere itself no matter what it is doing, but the speed relative to an outside observer will change (because there is a component of the rotational velocity in any other direction). Likewise, the speed of light relative to the universe is constant, but its speed as seen by an outside-observer (God) does increase in the direction of rotation. Equally, the distant stars are basically still relative to the universe as a whole, but moving relative to God. And God's point of view is the correct one!!!
I think you can do the maths yourself: speed = distance/time

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Now, Philip, why not answer some of the questions I asked:

Written by me on, guess where? That's right, page 10 of the ETs thread!
1. Will you give science the authority to tell you Jesus never rose - it just seemed like that to the people at the time?
2. Will you give it the authority to say that creation didn't happen in six days - it was just a way of saying it in order to prevent confusion on Moses' part?
3. Will you give it authority over all the Bible's statements?
4. Or just the ones about the sun?
5. And if God's so concerned with saying things that people will understand that he doesn't mind persistently telling us something moved when it didn't (being at least ecconomical with the truth), then why doesn't he make books like Revelation easy to understand?
6. And what about the verse I keep quoting at the bottom of these messages? Or are you going to tell us Ecclesiastes isn't inspired, like Helen did?

I'm not arguing science any longer. It is futile and it's always changinig its mind, anyway (and it also backs up my position more than yours, but still, I'm not arguing it any more). Also, I am also far too busy to argue science.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

 

[Phillip]

Aaaawww, come on Bartholomew. Arguing science does not necessarily make one position stronger than the other as long as we understand that super-natural effects may have to be considered when dealing with creationism (which is the limitation of science today). I enjoy debating this subject; more than once I have changed my mind by being convinced (ask Helen), but I cannot understand your theories unless I ask questions first. So, I will continue, and I hope that you will continue with your line of reasoning.

Okay, as to your first answer, you must believe in some sort of Aether which rotates in order to have an effect on rockets being launched (as strong as the effect is) otherwise there is simply not enough mass, close enough to Earth to have such an effect. Does that make sense?

As for your second answer, I'll have to think about that one.

Okay, let me ask a question that is not so science related and related to the Bible--that I did not see an answer for. Does the beast in Revelations 13 really have ten heads? If not, what is the difference with me using the statement the 'sun rose' because even in today's scientific world, that is a perfectly adequate explanation of what occurred and would even be acceptable in a court of law under oath?

I am busy too, but not enough to take a few moments to discuss a subject that is important. Pls, don't use that as an excuse not to answer.

[ October 26, 2002, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[rsr]

Ya'll have fun. I think I'll just believe Kepler and get on with it.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by rsr:
Ya'll have fun. I think I'll just believe Kepler and get on with it.

Well, you'd better start doing astrology. Kepler believed the discovery of moons on Jupiter proved the existance of ETs there, because the moons would have no astrological significance to anyone else! (yes - we've come full circle - ETs again!)

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Okay, as to your first answer, you must believe in some sort of Aether which rotates in order to have an effect on rockets being launched (as strong as the effect is) otherwise there is simply not enough mass, close enough to Earth to have such an effect. Does that make sense?

You're right - I do believe in the aether, although I deliberately didn't say so because my position stands without it. The most comprehensive of those papers I mentioned doesn't assume an aether, and yet still concludes that if the universe were to rotate about the earth, the effect of that rotation would be the equitorial bulge, Foucolt's pendulum, 'kicking' rockets, etc...

Does the beast in Revelations 13 really have ten heads? If not, what is the difference with me using the statement the 'sun rose' because even in today's scientific world, that is a perfectly adequate explanation of what occurred and would even be acceptable in a court of law under oath?

OK, the two are quite different. I mean, the beast is part of a vision - the sun is not. There are also differences, too. But that doesn't really matter - because the beast really did have ten horns! (I think you meant horns, not heads). I mean, John literally saw it, and it literally had ten horns! Now, the question of the sun rising is "when it says it rose" (we can literally see it rise), "did it really rise, or did it only appear to rise?" It's not about figurative language, but about whether the Bible can say something did happen, when meaning that it only appeared to happen. The beast in the vision really did have ten horns.

But like I said, you should probably compare historical statements about the sun (e.g. when it stopped on Joshua's long day) with other historical statements. I mean, if the sun only appeared to stand still, could it be that the Jews only appeared to defeat their enemies? Is it possible that Joshua only appeared to say what is recorded? Is it possible that God only appeared to listen to him? etc... Surely these comparisons make more sense than to compare the statements to a vision. I mean, you can justify allorgarizing everything if you use the, "Ah, well, you don't believe antichrist will be a literal beast" argument.

Sorry - I'm severly addicted to this board, and I have a lot of university work (yes, I'm only a student) to get on with, so I'm trying to keep away from long arguments! So please don't expect speedy replies!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. (Joshua 10:12-14)

 

[Dr. Bob]

I really question this entire thread in "Baptist Theology" section and would love to send it elsewhere.

Not there, but anyone have a suggestion as to where this topic of extremely limited interest might be shunted to where those so inclined can feel free to debate the physics of it?

 

[Rev. Joshua]

I would think that it belongs in Creation v. Evolution. Just my best guess.

Joshua

 

[Phillip]

Moderator, you may delete this post, it is an accident.
Thank you,

[ October 27, 2002, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by rsr:
Ya'll have fun. I think I'll just believe Kepler and get on with it.

Okay, so call me uninformed, Who is Kepler and what does he believe? A link would be nice.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:
I really question this entire thread in "Baptist Theology" section and would love to send it elsewhere.

Not there, but anyone have a suggestion as to where this topic of extremely limited interest might be shunted to where those so inclined can feel free to debate the physics of it?

Dr. Griffin, I humbly respect your opinion, but would like to say that I feel that this is not a discussion of physics anymore than it is a discussion of interpretation of the Bible as limited to Baptists. Therefore, it should be kept away from the evolution section where there is no limit of who can discuss. Regardless of the 'limited' interest, you may be surprised at how many people in Baptist circles have different opinions on this and 'doctrine' is a harmless place to put it.
This is just my humble opinion and you may do as you wish as moderator,but consider that it may loose interest if it is hard to find or becomes part of the evolution section where it requires e-mail posting.
Thanks

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Now, Philip, why not answer some of the questions I asked:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Written by me on, guess where? That's right, page 10 of the ETs thread!
1. Will you give science the authority to tell you Jesus never rose - it just seemed like that to the people at the time?

Phillip: no, there is no reason or proof otherwise.

2. Will you give it the authority to say that creation didn't happen in six days - it was just a way of saying it in order to prevent confusion on Moses' part?

Phillip: Likewise line-item #1

3. Will you give it authority over all the Bible's statements?
Phillip: Likewise line-item #1, there is nothing wrong with considering elements of science in order to help secular people believe in the Bible considering that real science has never disproven the Bible.

4. Or just the ones about the sun?

Phillip:A standard use of a statement 'the sun rises' does not fit with your other questions.

5. And if God's so concerned with saying things that people will understand that he doesn't mind persistently telling us something moved when it didn't (being at least ecconomical with the truth), then why doesn't he make books like Revelation easy to understand?
Phillip: I do not understand the importance of this question, first I never said the Sun does not 'move' it just does not orbit the Earth. I do not find Revelation difficult to understand and it seems to help understand the use of a 'figure of speech'.

6. And what about the verse I keep quoting at the bottom of these messages?

Phillip: As I said before, if I were to make the statement in a court of law under oath I would be considered as telling the truth. This is simply the way that the morning and evening have been described for centuries, even though we know today the Earth rotates making night and day.

Or are you going to tell us Ecclesiastes isn't inspired, like Helen did?

Yes, Ecclesiastes is inspired and I would imagine if you said she said it was not, it was you who misunderstood her. Although I did not see her answer, I know Helen well enough to know she believes in the inspiration of the Bible.

I'm not arguing science any longer. It is futile and it's always changinig its mind, anyway (and it also backs up my position more than yours, but still, I'm not arguing it any more). Also, I am also far too busy to argue science.

We are all busy, but if this is such an important issue to you then scientific observation is a key issue....such as the fact that if you do not believe in Aether, then there is not enough force from gravitational objects such as the Sun and moon and other suns (due to their extreme distances) to cause a perfect effect on rockets. And when I use the word perfect, I mean it is awfully coincidental that the effect of a rotating space would give the EXACT same speed adjustments to rockets and satellites as a simple 24 hour rotatin of the Earth.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)</font>[/QUOTE]

 

[Phillip]

Let me make a point using the verse you yourself quote continuously:

The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose. (Ecclesiastes 1:5)

If the sun ariseth and I am in the United States and I am in Asia it goeth down. Using your logic of ABSOLUTE interpretation of words, then there is a conflict. If I say it is rising, then I must be wrong if I have to say it goeth down at the same time.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Rev. Joshua:
I would think that it belongs in Creation v. Evolution. Just my best guess.

Joshua

Although you may believe in theistic evolution (which I'm assuming because of your non-literal interpretation of Genesis); this subject has nothing to do with evolution, I think there is never a question that Helen, Bartholomew and myself (the main posters on this subject) are NOT arguing evolution. If you wish to argue it, use that subject forum and go for it.

 

[Phillip]

Uh, excuse me, but one more science question. I will keep it short.

I read the papers you indicated. They seem to go into great detail on perception based on 'point-of-view' etc. as related to their own brand of reality.

My question is this: How do you explain an object as massive as the Sun orbiting the Earth. If orbital physics still work properly; why do they work close to the Earth and change further out?

Let me give an example. A low orbiting satellite will travel at a high rate of speed, circling the Earth possibly in 90 minutes (we will use this altitude for sake of argument). By adding energy to the satellite we push it to a higher orbit, but we see a well documented phenomenon of a slowing down. This caused many problems with astronauts practicing docking in the early days of spaceflight, because accelerating forward towards a faster moving satellite caused the spacecraft to rise and therefore slow down, doing exactly opposite of the astronauts desire. To catch up with a satellite, the astronaut has to slow his craft down to loose energy and increase speed in a lower orbit, where he will then add energy at the correct moment after 'passing' the docking ship and raising his orbit slowing down to meet the docking ship. This is the reason most docking uses computers today.

Now, this proves that the theory of spacecraft behavior acts as if the Earth were rotating which will work for both of our theories. We know that a spacecraft in geosynchronous orbit is a certain high altitude orbit (I believe around 22,000 miles?) The GPS satellites are one half the height and rotate the Earth every twelve hours and the spy satellites I have worked with are only approximately 100 miles up giving an extremely fast orbit. The moon orbits at a correct orbital speed due to its altitude, BUT the Sun orbits at 24 hour period causing its orbit to be thrown out when we compare it to the physical constraints of relativity. If the geocentric theory actually causes a relative view then 24 hours indicates a speed which is way too high. While in reality the Earth revolves around the Sun in one year (approx.) which fits orbital mechanics. How do you justify the discrepency in orbital mechanics of the Sun?

 

[Bartholomew]

Hi Philip,

Sorry - I don't really have time to keep up this debate. But in answer to your latest question, I line up close with Berkeley, Leibniz and Mach, in saying that physics is about relationships between matter. To those three, a rotating universe was the same as a rotating earth - since the relative motion is always the same. I don't agree that they are the same (because we have an absolute observer - God); but I do agree that the physics is the same.

Newton's view was that physics was about the reltionship between matter and absolute space. Thus to him, a rotating earth on its own, without a universe around it, would still produce the effects you mention -along with equitorial bulge, etc. However, Mach taught that it would not; that the universe itself (at a very distant level) determined physics at a local level. This premise was pretty much proved in one of the papers I quoted in the ETs thread. The reason the geocentric formulae work out the same as the heliocentric ones is that they are identical relative to the universe. The only difference is what happens relative to God.

YFAB

Bartholomew

 

[Johnv]

You haven't given up, have you? You refuse to even accept the possibilty that it is not a requirement for the Christian to accept an Earth-centered universe.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
You haven't given up, have you? You refuse to even accept the possibilty that it is not a requirement for the Christian to accept an Earth-centered universe.

Well, in reality, I was the one who kept the debate going. It was such an oddity for me to see such a hypothesis still being used that it actually fascinated me and I was curious to know how they justify what we know.

Bartholomew has always says he doesn't have time for the debate, but he seems to have an answer, even if I cannot accept it.

I've worked with too many guidance systems to know the Earth rotates and it is not space rotating around the Earth that will cause the effects we see. He never did give an explanation for voyager sending pictures of a perfectly functional sun-centered solar system. If voyager was spinning (with space) around the Earth, the Earth would remain right in the center of the picture and appear to be spinning, but not moving around the sun.

Oh, well, I guess we have beat this dead horse long enough. It was my fascination with such a strange belief that kept the ole mule alive.

My only problem occurred when Bartholomew made statements regarding a friend's view that a certain book in the Bible was not inspired by God. That is the only REAL issue I have had with Bartholomew--he can believe he is in the center of the universe all he wants to.

 

[Helen]

Oh, I believe Ecclesiastes was inspired all right! Solomon was inspired to show us the way things appear without following God! And that is a very important lesson. However the nature of the book is that we cannot take proof verses from it, as what it is doing is presenting an ungodly point of view. The view from the earth is not what one wants to use to proclaim spiritual truths!