Earth Centered Universe

[rsr]

Hadn't checked the thread.

On Kepler:

http://www.kepler.arc.nasa.gov/johannes.html#anchor784359

He originally thought the orbits of the planets could be described by regular polygons and spent a good deal of time trying to make the equations and data fit. He couldn't and was forced into the realization they were ellipses.

http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109N/1995/lectures/kepler.html

 

[Ed Edwards]

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "Okay, so call me uninformed, Who is Kepler and
what does he believe?"

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) described the
mathametics of planetary motion. His
maths used an ellipse for the tracks of
the planets (including earth) around the sun.
His raw data was the location of the planets
from the earth collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601).

His mathametical formuale are still used
to determine where it will appear that the
sun and planets are in the sky of earth.
They can also be be used to compute where the
planets and sun will appear in the sky
of the moon, but nobody is currently there
to check it out. The Kepler mathametical formuale
can be used on Mars to determine the position of
the sun and planets in the Martian sky, but no
human person is there to check it out. The automata
programed with Kepler to find the sun (for sellar power)
always found the sun, using Kepler's formuale.

Kepler's opinions on on ETs have NOT been verified.
His mathametical formuale have been verified for
the purposes for which they can be used. Kepler's
religious opinions have not been verified.

If you assume that the planets and sun go around the
earth, the necessary computations can be made
by computer (programed by people). This would add
to the world's computing cost, i'd guess about
46$Billion (25£Billion). 46$Billion is about what
Americans spend yearly on junk food. Who wants
to take the Americans' junk food away from them
just for different computations?

If the whole universe revolves around the
world, the maths get messy. There might not even
yet be enough world gross product to pay for the
computing power needed for the world society
to funciton. Therefore i will stick with Kepler's
mathametical formuale for the world's compuations
of planetary stuff. It's truth in actuality is
trivial compared to the economics of other methods.

 

[Bartholomew]

Hello,

Sorry, Helen, if I'm misunderstanding your view on the inspiration of Ecclesiastes.

Originally posted by Helen a few messages above:
Oh, I believe Ecclesiastes was inspired all right!

However, you also wrote:

Written by Helen on page 5 of the ETs thread:
Ecclesiastes was written by the Holy Spirit?

OK, then here we go:

I saw the tears of the oppressed --
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors
--and they have no comforter.

[cut...]

Now, I can find verses in other parts of the Bible which directly contradict what these verses above are saying.

Does the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

Well, does he??? If you say "yes", then you obviously don't think God is truthful. If you say "no", then we're in the curious position of a book being inspired, and yet not written by the Holy Spirit. I had always assumed that those who said the Bible was inspired meant they thought it was written by God. Do you not???

Sorry if I got something wrong, but I'm just way confused...

Where does the Bible say or hint that you can't believe everything in Ecclesiastes??? Does this rule apply in other places in the Bible?

 

[Bartholomew]

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.

Of course I don't give up. I just don't have time to argue the thing properly. And of course it's not a requirement for a Chrsitian to believe the geocentric system. But then it's not a requirement for him to believe in the 6-day creation, the innerancy of scripture, believers' baptism, once-saved-always-saved, or almost any other doctrine. But that doesn't mean we shoudld all stop talking about them and contending for the truth!

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
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.

And I've read too much scripture and too many physics papers to know you're wrong.

He never did give an explanation for voyager sending pictures of a perfectly functional sun-centered solar system.

Hey, bro, I'm a bit sick of you keep accusing me of not answering questions that I have done. I answered that one in the ETs thread. However, I don't think you've ever answered how we can allow God to just give us appearances when talking about the sun, but not anywhere else. What's so special about the sun that God just tells us what it looks like; but the rest of the time he tells us the truth?
But you're right. The discussion has fizzled out. It is my opinion that I believe what the Bible says; but you want to believe Newtonian (discredited) science. Neither will change the other's view.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Phillip:
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.

And I've read too much scripture and too many physics papers to know you're wrong.

He never did give an explanation for voyager sending pictures of a perfectly functional sun-centered solar system.

Hey, bro, I'm a bit sick of you keep accusing me of not answering questions that I have done. I answered that one in the ETs thread. However, I don't think you've ever answered how we can allow God to just give us appearances when talking about the sun, but not anywhere else. What's so special about the sun that God just tells us what it looks like; but the rest of the time he tells us the truth?
But you're right. The discussion has fizzled out. It is my opinion that I believe what the Bible says; but you want to believe Newtonian (discredited) science. Neither will change the other's view.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew</font>[/QUOTE]Bartholomew, You would make a great politician. You ought to consider that field? You lay out a position, state that the Bible says it and it can't be wrong (although it is a figure of speech accepted over the world for centuries) throw out a few 'non-main-stream' physics papers of which some don't really relate directly to your theory or back it up, then make at least one rude comment to your brothers or sisters in Christ and then complain that you don't have time for this as you throw out a few remarks which are so (hmmmm, what is the word I'm looking for) oh, well, outlandish, but yet take all debate away by saying I don't have time, but the Bible says it this way so its true, etc. etc. etc.
Is there any reason that you cannot just answer the simple question about what voyager is sending back or do you have a problem with repeating an answer because the ET column got sooooo long I didn't happen to see your statement.

I am NOT going to get into a debate with you about who has read the most Bible scripture and I would imagine that if I took the time I could find a lot more similar remarks made from man's viewpoint so that man in all generations can understand what is being said.

This will not take any time. As I said, you claim that space is revolving around the Earth. If so, voyager would be making the same revolution every 24 hours and because it is getting further out would be speeding up. Of course, based on your theory it is because space rotates out there. But, why does this theory not work close to the Earth, why does the moon having a slower rotation rate than the space would have. Once you move past geosynchronous orbit then things would continue to speed up as space does. The moon does not. But, for some strange reason when voyager was shot, it did continue to speed up as it moved further from the Earth (looks as a straight line to us, like an orbit to you). Why the discrepency?

[ October 31, 2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Oh, by the way, another book that can be used to show man's point of view (although inspired by God) is that of the Song of Solomon or Solomon's Song; where he describes one of his concubines in very Earthly terms (actually coming from a man who's testosterone appears to be quite high.)

Oh, well, I'll be, in reading Solomon's Son I found a statement that can be compared to your 'sun rising' statement. Solomon's Song 4:6 "Until the day break, and the shadows flee away..." Amazing, the inspired Word of God uses two figures of speech in one sentence. I did not know that shadows have the capability to 'flee', I thought they just went away when the Sun came overhead (ooops did I say the Sun orbited the Earth-----oh No, another figure of speech!----and that again is my point.) Let's quit trying to translate the Bible's clear word of observation. If the Bible were to have told the Israelites the Earth turned until the sun went down---ouch I can't even say that without using the figure of speech. Let me try again: If the Bible were to say the Earth spun until the Sun was over the 'new world' (America), then how was that generation supposed to understand it.

This is MUCH different than saying Jesus rose from the Dead. That was as clear back then as it is today!

Let me make one more point and I will finish, if you answered this one I'm sorry, BUT, if the sun Riseth in America; how can it falleth in Asia, would that not be a conflict of the words taken as literally as you claim they are?

Since you will not listen to science, I thought I would point out a few items using the Bible.

[ October 31, 2002, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "Okay, so call me uninformed, Who is Kepler and
what does he believe?"

Okay, Okay, I remember Kepler, in fact some of my orbital theory may come from him, we all stand on the shoulder's of giants. I just didn't do a lot of study in acadamia of historical science, mine was practical modern use of orbital dynamic calculations to get me from Earth to the Moon or from the U.S. over a city in Asia with a Satellite, etc. Sorry, for sounding so dumb. I agree with your facts of computing power to make such a proof, but I think it would be wasted money since the theories I have been shown don't explain real world orbital mechanics.

[ October 31, 2002, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Johnv]

The false geocentric universe means that over our north pole and our south pole, there would be no movement of the universe, other than axis rotation. Since in fact, the earth is tipped at about 23 degrees from its orbit around the sun, please explain how the false geocentric model explains the movement of the sun from north to south and back, resulting in changing seasons. If the sun is "wobbling", please explain why a wobbling sun is not seen by the numerous spacecraft that are out of reach of the earth's gravitational affects.

Also, you did not explain to me why the Coriolis effect exists, which I brought up in the previous thread. (Gustave Gaspard Coriolis 1792-1843 said, since the globe is rotating, any movement on the Northern hemisphere is diverted to the right, if we look at it from our own position on the ground; while movement on the Southern hempsphere does the opposite). This is the effect that causes hurricanes to form in counterclockwise circles in the northern hemisphere and clockwise circles in the southern hemisphere.

It's well known to workers of Santa Fe that railroad tracks wear out faster on one side than the other. River beds are dug deeper on one side than the other. In the Northern hemisphere the wind tends to rotate counterclockwise as it approaches a low pressure area. Next time you drain your pool, you'll notice the same thing.

Finally, you say you rebutted my information regarding Voyager. You did not. You failed to also explain the variations in the velocity of Voyager1 relative to Earth. Since the Earth does in fact rovolve around the sun, the Earth's orbit around the Sun forces it to move away from V1, resulting in a relative velocity that is slower. When the orbit forces it nearer, the velocity is faster. The false geocentric model does not adequately explain this, given that V1 is far enough away from the Earth and the Sun to not be affected by their gravity.

 

[Johnv]

...of course it's not a requirement for a Chrsitian to believe the geocentric system. But then it's not a requirement for him to believe in the 6-day creation, the innerancy of scripture, believers' baptism, once-saved-always-saved, or almost any other doctrine. But that doesn't mean we shoudld all stop talking about them and contending for the truth!

A six day creation, scriptural inerrancy, OSAS, etc, are matters of opinion and conviction. A sun-orbiting earth is a matter of fact.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
Bartholomew, You would make a great politician. You ought to consider that field? You lay out a position, state that the Bible says it and it can't be wrong (although it is a figure of speech accepted over the world for centuries) throw out a few 'non-main-stream' physics papers of which some don't really relate directly to your theory or back it up, then make at least one rude comment to your brothers or sisters in Christ and then complain that you don't have time for this as you throw out a few remarks which are so (hmmmm, what is the word I'm looking for) oh, well, outlandish, but yet take all debate away by saying I don't have time, but the Bible says it this way so its true, etc. etc. etc.

Hi Philip,

Yes, I would like to be a politician in the future - although I'm guessing that's an insult and not a compliment!
But what rude comments did I make to you (or anyone else)? Don't you think it might be rude of you to keep accusing me of not answering questions when in fact I have done? But whatever, I'm truly sorry if I upset any of you - I really didn't mean to. Am I forgiven?

However, I quoted more than just "figures of speech". Your analyisis that they are figures of speech is not because of anything the Bible says, or because of anything the people of the time believed or knew; but because you're just trying to keep hold of your "scientific" idea that the earth goes around the sun. You steadfastly refuse to tell me why the sun is special in that the Bible only refers to what appears to happen to it; and yet the Bible tells us what really does happen with everthing else. Also, I can't find any record of you or anyone else explaining why we can't believe the clear teaching of scripture that "the sun stopped" on Joshua's long day. If the sun only appeared to stop, did the Jews only appear to defeat their enemies? But you seem to be allowing science to interpret the Bible.

Is there any reason that you cannot just answer the simple question about what voyager is sending back or do you have a problem with repeating an answer because the ET column got sooooo long I didn't happen to see your statement.

OK - can this be the last time? The universe you beleive in is geometrically correct. Therefore Voyager photos will be totally explicable in your system. From the point of view of the distant stars, the earth orbits the sun and spins on its axis. From the point of view of the earth, the universe spins around it every day. The two are geometrically identical! The motions of sun, earth, etc. relative to each other (and it is their relative motion that determines the photographs) is the same in both systems. The Voyager photos are correct because the solar system moves in such a way to give you those pictures - sun going around the earth, and planets going around the sun.

I am NOT going to get into a debate with you about who has read the most Bible scripture

Sorry - I wasn't trying to imply I'd read more than you (I almost certainly haven't!). I was saying that I'd read enough to know that you're wrong in saying the earth goes around the sun.

Once you move past geosynchronous orbit then things would continue to speed up as space does. The moon does not. But, for some strange reason when voyager was shot, it did continue to speed up as it moved further from the Earth

Sorry - I don't know what you mean.

(looks as a straight line to us, like an orbit to you). Why the discrepency?

It looks the same to all of us! The only disagreement is which thing is actually stationary! The relative motion is all the same.

Finally, as regards my saying I don't have time for this debate. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that I'm about the only person on this board advocating an un-moving earth (w_fortenberry believes that the earth is at the center, but it also rotates). Therefore it is very difficult for me to keep up with the posts required to sustain the debate. It requires me to either ignore some people's questions (which seems to really annoy you), or write about three times as many posts as anyone else (see what happened in the ETs thread). Consequently, I'm trying to stop debating (though as you can see, I can't really resist the temptation!) I'm really sorry if this seems dishonest or an easy way out or something, but I honestly don't have time to do this. My studies (in theoretical physics!

) really do require me to spend less time at the Baptist Board!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Johnv:
The false geocentric universe means that over our north pole and our south pole, there would be no movement of the universe, other than axis rotation. Since in fact, the earth is tipped at about 23 degrees from its orbit around the sun, please explain how the false geocentric model explains the movement of the sun from north to south and back, resulting in changing seasons. If the sun is "wobbling", please explain why a wobbling sun is not seen by the numerous spacecraft that are out of reach of the earth's gravitational affects.

Also, you did not explain to me why the Coriolis effect exists, which I brought up in the previous thread. (Gustave Gaspard Coriolis 1792-1843 said, since the globe is rotating, any movement on the Northern hemisphere is diverted to the right, if we look at it from our own position on the ground; while movement on the Southern hempsphere does the opposite). This is the effect that causes hurricanes to form in counterclockwise circles in the northern hemisphere and clockwise circles in the southern hemisphere.

It's well known to workers of Santa Fe that railroad tracks wear out faster on one side than the other. River beds are dug deeper on one side than the other. In the Northern hemisphere the wind tends to rotate counterclockwise as it approaches a low pressure area. Next time you drain your pool, you'll notice the same thing.

Finally, you say you rebutted my information regarding Voyager. You did not. You failed to also explain the variations in the velocity of Voyager1 relative to Earth. Since the Earth does in fact rovolve around the sun, the Earth's orbit around the Sun forces it to move away from V1, resulting in a relative velocity that is slower. When the orbit forces it nearer, the velocity is faster. The false geocentric model does not adequately explain this, given that V1 is far enough away from the Earth and the Sun to not be affected by their gravity.

Actually, I pointed out that a rotating universe was not only geometrically identical to your system; but that as a consequence it would produce the same results (e.g. Foucault's pendulum, equitorial bulge, etc.) Why does a rotating earth explain these affects? Why should it? At the end of the day, you'll come up with Newton's laws of motion as the "reason why". But why should Newton's laws be true? I'll tell you: no reason. They're just empirical. They're just what's observed. The geocentric model explains them, too, but with a rotating universe. Why should that work? It just does. Same reason why yours does. Also, you still stick with the Newtonian idea of physics being about absolute behaviour of matter in absolute space, rather than relational between the bodies of the universe. Which (if either) of these positions is true cannot (at least at the moment) be determined by anyone within the universe. But someone outside the universe knows what's going on...

 

[Johnv]

In other words, you're not going to bother addressing my valid points which invalidate the false geocentrism model.

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
If the Bible were to have told the Israelites the Earth turned until the sun went down---ouch I can't even say that without using the figure of speech. Let me try again: If the Bible were to say the Earth spun until the Sun was over the 'new world' (America), then how was that generation supposed to understand it.

Well, how's this generation supposed to understand it? We tell our children the earth rotates - I've never seen anyone have trouble with that yet. And do you know, that's exactly the argument that the liberals use to discredit 6-day creation???

This is MUCH different than saying Jesus rose from the Dead. That was as clear back then as it is today!

That the sun rose seemed pretty clear to everyone before Copernicus. If Copernicus had produced "science" that told us Jesus had only appeared to have risen from the dead, would you have believed him???

Let me make one more point and I will finish, if you answered this one I'm sorry, BUT, if the sun Riseth in America; how can it falleth in Asia, would that not be a conflict of the words taken as literally as you claim they are?

Good question, bro!

It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. That since the universe is geocentric, then all directions pointing up from the earth's surface are in fact "up" by God's definition. Consequently, the sun is always rising and going down.

2. A friend of mine once remarked that "geocentricity" actually should be "Jerusalocentricity"; i.e. that God's "coordinates" are with reference not only to the earth, but to Jerusalem, or at least the middle east (Jesus went "up" from Jerusalem at his ascension). Thus, the sun doesn't actually rise on Mexico - it's actually going down when it's there. However, the Bible doesn't talk about the sun rising in Mexico - only in the near-east.

OK - that's my last post. If you like, I'll continue this with you by e-mail, where it won't be me verses everyone else!!!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

[w_fortenberry]

Phillip and Johnv,

You have posted much in opposition to geocentricity, but you have not presented any other model which you can claim supports your statements. You have mentioned heliocentricity as a possible substitute, but it appears that you are referring to a heliocentric solar system and not a heliocentric universe. We also propose an apparent heliocentric solar system. However, we propose a geocentric universe. What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

[ October 31, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: w_fortenberry ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
Phillip and Johnv,

You have posted much in opposition to geocentricity, but you have not presented any other model which you can claim supports your statements. You have mentioned heliocentricity as a possible substitute, but it appears that you are referring to a heliocentric solar system and not a heliocentric universe. We also propose an apparent heliocentric solar system. However, we propose a geocentric universe. What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

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.

Since most of my experience is related to close-earth orbital and sub-orbital guidance then I have not studied the theories of the entire universe. Since God is omnipotent, it (in my humble opinion) could be that our universe is infinite. God may have very possibly created a limitless universe. If this is the case, then it is very possible that you could pick any point, including the Earth or a sun over 500 light years away and call it the center, because there would be no center. If God created a limited universe, then we have no idea where the central point might be because the Bible does NOT say that the Earth is in the center. 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.

Bartholomew, I am not necessarily referring to your theory, I am referring to all general theories of a universe---a universe which I think is so complex that we will never have even a concept of its true complexity until we are with God in heaven.

w_fortenberry, please explain further your concept of heliocentric universe, unless I am misquoting you.

Thanks,

 

[Thankful]

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "You lay out a position,
state that the Bible says it and it can't be
wrong (although it is a figure of speech
accepted over the world for centuries) throw
out a few 'non-main-stream' physics papers of
which some don't really relate directly to your
theory or back it up, then make at least one
rude comment to your brothers or sisters in
Christ and then complain that you don't have
time ... "

Yes! a primer for board posting

Tell you what, soon as i have time

i'll start a "discussion" on the flat earth.

BTW, Brother Phillip, would you like to get in early on my
perpetual motion machine stock pyramid sales
scheme (guarenteed 10% Biblical sales method).
In fact

i think we might even name the scheme
with your name, if you reply soon

 

[Johnv]

What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

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. Neither the solar system nor the earth are anywhere near the center of the universe. 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. Since the shape of the universe is of no concern in regards to geocentric fallacy, I will bow out of that for now.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

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. Neither the solar system nor the earth are anywhere near the center of the universe. 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. Since the shape of the universe is of no concern in regards to geocentric fallacy, I will bow out of that for now.

I have no problem with 4th dimensional references, plus I agree with your remarks about the center of the universe. I think you and I may be a lot closer on theory than I am with others.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Thankful:
\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "You lay out a position,
state that the Bible says it and it can't be
wrong (although it is a figure of speech
accepted over the world for centuries) throw
out a few 'non-main-stream' physics papers of
which some don't really relate directly to your
theory or back it up, then make at least one
rude comment to your brothers or sisters in
Christ and then complain that you don't have
time ... "

Yes! a primer for board posting

Tell you what, soon as i have time

i'll start a "discussion" on the flat earth.

BTW, Brother Phillip, would you like to get in early on my
perpetual motion machine stock pyramid sales
scheme (guarenteed 10% Biblical sales method).
In fact

i think we might even name the scheme
with your name, if you reply soon

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. As you can see, I am from McAlester, but not not from behind the walls (inside joke for Okies only).