Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

Good question, Philip. 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.

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)

[ October 26, 2002, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: Bartholomew ]

 

Yes it would, Philip. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. It's easier to show with a picture - or better still, a working model (they do exist). If it is impossible for the relative motion to be the same whilst the earth is stationary (i.e. what I believe), then you have just disproved geometry. Well done.

That's because I was in the process of writing it whilst you wrote the above qutation! Give me a chance! I've been here ages writing replies to your questions - some of which I'd answered before anyway!

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

 

The last update I got was from a buddy of mine at JPL. It's from May 2002, so it's a few months old:

Distance from the Sun: 7.876 billion mi
Distance from Earth: 7.801 billion mi
Velocity Relative to Sun: 38,540 mph
Velocity Relative to Earth: 63,404 mph*
Round Trip Light Time (HH:MM:SS): 23:15:54

* varies during the course of the year as the Earth traverses its annual solar orbit.

Note the last item, the velocity relative to Earth. When the Earth's orbit around the Sun forces it to move away from V1, the relative velocity is slower. When the orbit forces it nearer, the velocity is faster. Since V1 is far enough away from the Sun and the Earth to not be affected by their gravity, the effects of a sun-orbiting earth are a matter of objectivity.

[ October 22, 2002, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

approx 186,000 miles per second
or, more exactly
299,792.458 km/sec

 

For W_Fortenberry!

I labor under the misconception that the universe can be accurately described as a hypersphere, and we dwell on that hypersphere's three dimensional surface. You tell me that is scientifically impossible. Please share with me why that is the case! Thanks

 

Can't happen, did you read my post about C being a constant as compared to objects moving much lower than C? This WOULD also occur in a circular path as Helen first mentioned. Why would light speed increase?</font>[/QUOTE]Look, Philip, how many times do I have to tell you that our physical laws are true relative to the universe? The speed of light is constant in a straight line relative to the universe. The universe has a (more or less) constant angular speed (going around the earth), i.e. one revolution per 24 hours. 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. Now this explanation is both physically and geometrically identical to yours. The only difference is philosophical - which thing we want to consider still. If you can prove the geocentric explanation wrong, you will also have proved your own explanation wrong. I don't know how many times I have to tell you, but it all works out the same!!!

Now, I'm not going to argue the science any more, for three reasons:

1. I've persistently explained how the science cannot prove one idea above the other. I've even given references to prove it. However, you just ignore those papers and tell us they're wrong - even though they're written by people who know a lot more about the subject that you or I, and who also have no pro-Christian bias.
2. Science always changes. There was a time when science said it was impossible for the earth to go around the sun. Then there was a time when science said it was impossible for the sun to go around the earth. Now it says it doesn't matter. What will it say tomorrow???
3. This is a Baptist Board, not a science board. If I was just arguing with a bunch of secular scientists I'd discuss the science. But I'm not. The Bible is what matters. This is in the "Baptist Theology and Bible Study" forum. So, please answer my Bible points:

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?

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)

 

The earth is NOT rotating.

Please explain to me why the Coriolis effect exists. (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.

 

Vanity of vanities...all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh;\: but the earth abideth for ever.
Ecclesiastes 1

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2 Peter 3

Now I'm not sure which of these you want to consider the truth, but in your consideration, I would suggest to take things in context...

 

Paul of Eugene,

Let me first ask you a few questions regarding hypersphere theory.

First of all, what evidence can you present for the physical existence of a fourth spatial dimension?

Second, According to most cosmologists, the hypersphere and the geocentric sphere are both mathematical possibilities. Why should one be preferred above the other?

Third, how did this hypersphere develop?

Fourth, is there any scientific or mathematical reason why the geocentric view of our universe should not be accepted as accurate?

Finally, I would like to point out that even if the physical existence of the hypersphere were to be proven, it would still allow for a geocentric perception in that every point of the universe would be equally central.