Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

[Johnv]

You said the two theiroes of the expanding universe (either saddle-shaped or spere shaped, 4th dimensionally) can be proved fasle. THat's not quite an accurate statement.

Dr Hawking assertion is not that they can be proven false. Rather his assertion is that there isn't enough evidence to suggest one model more conclusively than the other.

I tend to lean towards the saddle shape, myself.

Your belief in a sherical universe with the earth in the center is a misunderstanding of the concept. It's a 4th dimentional representation of the 3d universe. In other words, in the sperical model, there's nothing in the center. All of th universe would be on the surface of the sphere.

[ October 17, 2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

[Torrey]

I have to agree with C.S. Murphy
Alien activity is demon activity.
Do not be deceived or distracted.

 

[Johnv]

Alien activity is demon activity.

I assume you're talking about extraterrestrials and not my gardener.

How can alien activity be demon activity when it seems the consensus is that extraterrestrials do not exist?

And if they do exist, are we to assume that they're demons?

What am I missing?

 

[Johnv]

Okay everyone, i forgot one important item that i was going to post about geocentrism.

Does anyone remember the Voyager I spacecraft? It left the solar system quite some time ago. When I last looked into the happenings of V1 two years ago, it was STILL sending back pictures to earth. It's sent back pictures of the solar system, and in time lapse photos, you can see the planets orbiting the sun, not the other way around. If geocentrism were real, the only way to explain that would be if V1 were travelling in a corkscrew trajectory, which is not possible in the vacuum of space (V1 is travelling in a straight line, and will do so unless acted upon by another force). It's now far enough away that the pictures sent back show part of the spiral arm of our part of the galaxy, and our sun is still identifiable. There's a copy of this photo at Disneyland with our location clearly marked. This would only be possible if the earth orbited the sun, and the sun orbited the galaxy. If you don't believe me, go to Disneyland and check it out for yourself (in Tomorrowland).

 

[Helen]

Thank you, John! I am REALLY curious as to any reply you get on this one...

 

[Johnv]

Thanks Helen. Your posts are always uplifting for me

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Johnv:
If geocentrism were real, the only way to explain that would be if V1 were travelling in a corkscrew trajectory, which is not possible in the vacuum of space (V1 is travelling in a straight line, and will do so unless acted upon by another force).

OK, sorry for breaking my word again and posting when I said I wouldn't any more. But Johnv, PLEASE will you check out your facts before just posting untruths??? You really don't understand the modern geocentric system at all. Go to www.geocentricity.com or read what I wrote earlier on this thread. V1 is travelling in a roughly straight line relative to the universe. It will not deviate from a straight line relative to the universe unless a force acts upon it. However, since the universe is itself travelling around the earth, V1 is travelling in a corkscrew. Stop falsely accusing the geocentric theory. If it can't explain what we see, then you've disproved geometry. Well done.

 

[Rev. Joshua]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
...Go to www.geocentricity.com...

From Geocentricity.Org I joined the Creation Research Society and soon ran into some differences with them because many, though not all of the members of that learned society are scientists first and biblicists second. I had learned my second lesson, though. Science can never correct the Bible. Never twist the wording of scripture to fit a pet theory. I still cannot go along with the two-model approach: that creationism and evolutionism should be taught side-by-side as theories. Again I asked the Lord: "What must I forget next?"

This strikes me as the most extreme and even fanatical form of biblicism. The author seems insistent that accepting the theological truths of the biblical writers means also accepting everything else about their worldview.

Certainly not my hermeneutic, but as long as he's not getting hired by NASA he's welcome to think what he wants.

Joshua

 

[Johnv]

Go to www.geocentricity.com or read what I wrote earlier on this thread.
I have done both. Your assessment and the the assessment at the site are incorrect.

V1 is travelling in a roughly straight line relative to the universe. No, it's travelling at a straight line relative to the speed of light.

It will not deviate from a straight line relative to the universe unless a force acts upon it. It will not deviate from s staright line relative to anything, unless a force acts upon it. Be aware, however, that a force acting on any other object does not guarantee that the outcome will be a modified trajectory. Most typically, a force acting upon an object results in the destruction of the object, or the object's trajectory.

However, since the universe is itself travelling around the earth, V1 is travelling in a corkscrew. According to NASA, V1 would not be able to survive the gravitational forces required to pull it around the earth at that rate you're describing.

Stop falsely accusing the geocentric theory.
I'm not. I'm accusing the geocentric theory correctly.

 

[rainbow]

my one little opinion.......life out there? hmmmmmmm, I believe that the LOrd God that we believers say we believe in ---is not the author of confusion, and to accept life as we know it in outer space just doesn't seem right.....we have messed up this planet that He's given us enough already......all that's out there is just more pollution.......and IF there were life in outer space did Jesus die for them too??????? Just asking.......smiley says hello!

 

[Bartholomew]

Look, Johnv, it's obvious that you don't understand the geocentric position I am advocating. I keep answering these objections of gravity, and you (and others) keep coming and giving basically the same (incorrect) reply. I'm sorry if I'm useless at explainng the thing, but you're just completely wrong in your accusations. Comletely.

Originally posted by Johnv:
V1 is travelling in a roughly straight line relative to the universe. No, it's travelling at a straight line relative to the speed of light.

Sorry - that statement makes absolutely no sense as far as physics is concerned. You obviously don't understand what "relative to" means. It means "assuming that [whatever it is] is stationary." So, when I said V1 was travelling in a straight line "relative to the universe", I meant it was travelling in a straight line "assuming the universe is stationary". If you don't believe this, then it is you, not I, who is disagreeing with NASA.

It will not deviate from a straight line relative to the universe unless a force acts upon it. It will not deviate from s staright line relative to anything, unless a force acts upon it.

It will deviate from a straight line relative to the earth, relative to the moon, relative to Mars, relative to almost everything, in fact! The only thing it will not (appreciably) deviate from a straight line relative to are the very distant stars - i.e. the universe as a whole.

However, since the universe is itself travelling around the earth, V1 is travelling in a corkscrew. According to NASA, V1 would not be able to survive the gravitational forces required to pull it around the earth at that rate you're describing.

This just proves you've understood almost nothing I've written (sorry - I was as clear as I could be). The laws of gravity are true relative to the unverse as a whole (you know what I mean by this now?

) When Newton formulated his theory of gravity he assumed that the distant stars, i.e. the universe itself, was at rest in absolute space. Thus, for something to move in an orbit in absolute space, it needed a gravitational force to act upon it. However, Newton couldn't prove that the universe was at rest in absolute space. It was a guess. It was philosophy. How could he know? He had nothing he could be sure was stationary to compare it to. So, of course something needs a force to act upon it to make it go in an orbit relative to the universe; but then V1 isn't in an orbit relative to the universe! All we're arguing about is, "is the universe, itself, moving?" No observations of rockets, gravity or anything else can deal with this. It's all the same to physics.

Stop falsely accusing the geocentric theory.
I'm not. I'm accusing the geocentric theory correctly.

That's simply untrue. I hope you've realized now that what you're saying is wrong, and that you'll stop posting these down-right untruths. I keep dealing with this issue, and nobody apparently takes any notice. This is why I'm so fed up of answering anything else on this thread. All opposition to geocentricity on scientific grounds has to be wrong: as far as science is concerned, whatever you suppose is stationary (as long as the relative motion is the same), you'll get the same result. If you don't agree, argue against those papers I referenced previously.

 

[UTEOTW]

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
I have previously cited the CBR measurements as proof of geocentricity. That statement still stands unrefuted.

OK. Standard scientific explanation of the CMB. If you heat something sufficiently it will become ionized, that is it will lose electrons and become charged. If you heat something to a high enough temperature the material will become fully ionized into a bare atomic nucleus and free electrons. The early universe was very hot and made essentially of all hydrogen but it was so hot that all of the mass in the universe was fully ionized. Ionized hydrogen is opaque to light and therefore all light was scattered by the ionized hydrogen. This scattering led to very efficient heat transfer leaving the mass of the universe at the same temperature. As space expanded the mass cooled. (Remember your gas laws?) Eventually the universe cooled to the point that protons and electrons could combine to form neutral hydrogen. Since the universe was in thermal equilibrium this happened at roughly the same time everywhere. Now neutral hydrogen is transparent to light and so light could now pass freely through the universe. Let me use an analogy to explain the CMB. Imagine that the solar system was filled with an impenetrable fog. In an instant the fog disappears. You are looking at the sky. Immediately you would be unable to see anything in the sky. Light has to travel from the particular object to you for you to be able to see it. That takes time. (Yes I am ignoring here for simplicity that objects in the solar system are seen by reflection of sunlight and that it would take some period of time for light to travel from the sun to the object and be reflected back to earth.) Within a couple of seconds the moon pops into view. With time Mars and Venus. Then Mercury. Then Jupiter. Then Saturn. There is an imaginary sphere moving out at the speed of light and when that sphere reaches a particular object you can see it again as light has then had sufficient time to reach your eyes.

Now for the CMB. What can be observered is known as the surface of last scattering. It is observered as an equidistant surface because of the way you see it. An hour after the last scattering, a particular point in space would observe a CMB that was a surface one light hour away. And a week. And a month. And a year. And how ever old you want to say the universe is the CMB is just that surface of the light that was scattered for the last time exactly as long ago as it took the light to reach your instrument. From any locality, the observation would be the same.

Now if you want to use the CMB as proof of geocentricity please do two things. First refute the current scientific explanation. As Helen pointed out earlier it is possible that the surface of last scattering is a result of the stretching out of the heavens during creation so you cannot just attack the Big Bang. Second, to be be used as evidence of geocentricity, please explain the origin of the CMB. Please tell what surface is being observed, how it originates, and a good explanation for why the surface is of such a unifrom termperature. If you you cannot do these two things please refrain from making the unsubstantiated assertion that the CMB is evidence for geocentricity.

 

[Phillip]

Boy, I have been off the board for about a week and the direction of this thread is really interesting. I am glad the moderators allowed it to continue and amazing to see some of the theories out here.

Helen, hmmmmm, you kept your cool very well considering that you were slammed pretty hard, "sister".

Bartholomew, you amaze me. In the face of opposition, you persist. Please, if I missed it, answer my question I posted earlier. If the earth is rotating, what is it's rate? (relative to "fixed" space). If the sun is orbiting the earth what is the period of the orbit. If the sun is orbiting, what is Mars and the other planets of our solar system doing? (orbiting the sun, earth or what?) Please, be specific, because if you are going to convince an engineer who has designed guidance systems like myself that everything is "relative" and can look as if it were doing something different than it really is, then you will have to give me some numbers. Please?
Thanks.......

Helen----No medicine now and I'm still seeing the same thing. I don't know the current creationist theories of the enormity of the universe, but I guess if it is infinite, maybe we could be in the center...from a point of view haha
Anyway, one way to explain the Bible using the "sun rising and setting" could be this way: If I were sitting in a court room today and under oath and said "the sun rose this morning" I would be considered as "telling the truth". There would be no perjury, but the earth would still be rotating around the earth. Guess what? The Bible IS RIGHT. ....and so is NASA (at least on orbital mechanics).

 

[Phillip]

Sadly, I reviewed the website you (Bartholomew) posted and I must say it is a horrible example of "bad-science" to say the least. It is a mis-mash of items such as theories relating to "foam" view of sub-atomic particles (made popular by Michael Crichton in his book "Time-Line" among other theories that may be "good-science", but are far beyond the comprehension of most amateur scientists; most of which do not relate to the subject with coherent methodology.

I hope you do not take this post personally Bartholomew, but there is no way the "relativity" as you describe it can even come close to explaining the fantasy world you have come to believe in.

Another note (maybe this is nothing but a personal issue on my part), it is interesting that space scientists and engineers are described as "technicians" on the website. There is NOTHING wrong with being a technician, but, as it is used, it does tend to make the reader think there is a limit to the knowledge and capabilities of the designers of satellite, missile and spacecraft guidance systems.

Relativity, cannot and will not answer the gaping holes in the theory and is abused, to say the least, in this example of a hypothesis (does not rate "theory" status) which is on the same level as Area 51 conspiracy theories. A little bit of truth (for example Area 51 is a real base) to be mixed with a lot of misunderstood theories, most of which are too deep for most of the authors of the wild stories to even understand, let alone tie together in a coherent universal model.

The only problem, argument or debate is futile because as shown in ten pages, very, very little actual mathematical theory is utilized along with scriptures used out of context.

As I said in the earlier post, I can truthfully say in a court of law, under oath, that the sun rose and the judge has no problem understanding that I am referring to a revolving earth---regardless of what was understood, but observed in 800 B.C.

I think this probably ends the debate on E.T. since it went off on such an incredible tangent. I hope the people who believe these fairy tales do not get involved with a "cult" because this is the mentality used by those who say "the Bible says Jesus will return in a UFO on certain-certain-date" (just read it in Ezekiel if you don't believe me, I will make it fit for you). But, let me make it clear for those who may not understand, this is not what I believe.

There is a huge difference between a concept such as evolution which has absolutely no basis in evidential and visible science. Orbital mechanics is a very solid and observable science and if I am "walking around and tree and it appears to revolve" as you describe makes a mockery out of the complex equations which require corrections for earth spin, sun and moon gravity effects, etc. none of which can be described due to a different "point of view -- relativity theory". ....won't work....sorry.

I tell you what, Bartholomew, I will build a spacecraft and configure it for an Earth centered solar-system and send you to Mars. I would probably be charged with murder if you were to ride aboard such a craft--to put it bluntly.

If God cannot make a HUGE universe and keep track of man, then he would not be omnipotent. He does not require that we be sat in the middle so that he can find us when looking for us. I give him more credit than that.

The original thread was, are there extraterrestrials? Besides the heavenly beings, we will all find out soon enough.

----end case-------

[ October 19, 2002, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[w_fortenberry]

Thank you, UTEOTW. Your statements are challenging and show an understanding of the topic which far surpasses that of the usual response. I am working on a reply to your explanation; but before I post it, I would like to know if this explanation can be documented. As I am continually seeking to further my own understanding, a short listing of books on the subject would be much appreciated.

 

[w_fortenberry]

Phillip, you end your case without addressing all the evidence.

 

[Helen]

He doesn't have to, fortenberry. Once an idea has proved false, one doesn't need to go beating it to death any further.

 

[Mrs KJV]

the bible talks about God creating the worlds....

If there is life out their it would not discourage my faith.

God says he made man in his own image. So they might look just like us. What do you think? This is not a big deal for me.

 

[Baptist Vine]

If intelligent life was confirmed on another planet, I would want to inquire of those aliens as to the origin of the universe and life, both theirs and ours.

I would want to know who made the aliens? How did we all get here? Unless they had a good explanation, better then the ones that we are faced with today, my faith would not be shaken, well not shaken completely, due to the intelligent extra terrestrial discovery alone.

More intelligent life, more 'intelligent design' if you will, would only add to and confound the need to explain a universe with even more design and intelligence.

A design needs a designer I've always thought, and nobody has been able to convince me yet otherwise. So simply more intelligence would not be sufficient by itself to phase me.

The Bible doesn't mention other worlds, it seems to concentrate solely on humans and our own dilemas, so I wouldn't have problems arising from 'why didn't the Bible talk about that other world' questions.

I would want to know if these aliens ever had their own creation theories or creation beliefs at any time. Do all the aliens think the same? Who are they?

If these intelligent aliens had no strife or discord, and complete harmony, and an honest and trusted examination of their complete history demonstrated that they were nothing but peaceful and also beyond any kind of corruption that could be imagined, corruption both small and great, then at that point, yes, I might have a problem.

Oh, and commenting on 'blackbirds' post back on page 1 of this thread that 'warp drive' contradicts Einstein isn't quite true - at least I don't think so. Of course 'warp drive' is a fictional television device, however, the fictional idea might fit general relativity.

Einstein developed two relativity theories: the special and the general theory.

It's true that one of the consequences of special relativity is that no object with mass can travel at or faster than the speed of light by attempting to apply greater and greater force for acceleration. Any force you attempt to apply gets converted to and added to the objects mass instead of toward accelerating it.

My simple understanding of the general relativity is that all matter warps the fabric of space and space-time. Space is not the real fabric of our universe, but rather space-time is, and space and space-time can be warped by matter. This is how the general theory explains the nature of gravity.

Warp drive in science fiction is a deliberate warping of space artificially (through special fields) rather than by means of a large massive body, so that two very far points of space are brought close together to enable the starship to traverse them, where otherwise when not so brought together by warping their traverse would require a faster than light speed. I think that is the explanation of warp drive.

Whew!

[ October 20, 2002, 03:24 AM: Message edited by: Baptist Vine ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
If the earth is rotating, what is it's rate? (relative to "fixed" space). If the sun is orbiting the earth what is the period of the orbit. If the sun is orbiting, what is Mars and the other planets of our solar system doing? (orbiting the sun, earth or what?)

Hi Philip. The earth is NOT rotating. The universe rotates about the earth approximately every 24 hours, and takes around everything within it in that time. The planets of the solar system are, on top of this motion, orbitting the sun in their scientifically-verified orbital periods (in a similar way to how the modern system has the moon going around the earth, going round the sun).