Originally posted by Helen:
1. Modern science says that anyone (at least in this vacinity of the universe) can claim he is standing still, and everything is rotating around him. There's no physical difference no matter who is right, because physics is only describes how things interact relative to each other. The forces, etc. work out the same no matter whom you assume is stationary.
Modern science knows quite clearly that the above statement is wrong. Our solar system produces its own Doppler shift. That is because it, itself, is moving through space. If it is moving, I guarantee that we are, too.
Moving with respect to what? The distant stars. But this is irrelevant, since we're discussing what the distant stars are doing.
Yes, of course things are measured relative to each other. That is how we can manage to get a space probe to fly by the moons of Jupiter, for instance. We can calculate Jupiter's motion around the sun relative to our own and know the thrust and direction and speed necessary for a successful journey. Now, if the sun and Jupiter and all else were rotating around the earth, the math and the directions taken would be quite different.
Helen, you're beginning to annoy me, because these statements are just wrong.
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. The geocentric theory I believe in is geometrically identical to the modern idea you apparently believe in. The only difference is I think something (the earth) is actually fixed. Now either you've just completely ignored my numerous statements that this is what I believe in, or you don't understand what you're talking about. If the two are geometrically the same, there is no difference in rockets, space probes, or anything else. Either that, or you've disproved a foundational principle of mathematics. Write a thesis and you'll win a Nobel prize.
2. Consequently it says that if it all turns out the same anyway, then it is all the same anyway. You can't say that something is really moving: it just depends who's looking at it. Since everyone's point of view is just as good as everyone else's, talking about what is really moving is meaningless. Nothing is moving absolutely because there is no 'preferred observer' whose opinion on the subject matters any more than anyone else's.
An isotropic universe in terms of energy, such as your cosmic background radiation, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter!
That's why I never mentioned it in relation to the matter!!!
For instance, many of the constellations are constellations because of their positions relative to earth. However, if you were somewhere in the neighborhood of Orion, which is disrupting at a very rapid speed, it would all look completely different to you. Things are NOT the same no matter where you are in space!
Of course. But the equations of motion will work out the same if we model the universe as rotating about this place in Orion.
I disagree with this, because, of course, God's opinion is better than everyone else's. God's view is absolute. So if he tells us which moves - the earth or sun - then that has to be absolutely true. It follows from 1. that this cannot be proved or disproved by scientific observation of the motion of stars, etc.
Ah, but the heavens declare his handiwork! And the more we know about the heavens, the more we know about his handiwork. Paul also mentions that creation testifies to Him. Therefore the study of creation in a true sense will lead us to a little more knowledge of Him. Scientific observation is valuable for these reasons alone.
Are you reading what I actually write??? I said that you cannot prove whether the earth or the sun moves by simply observing the stars. That you can see more of his handiwork by doing so, I entirely agree.
3. Finally, relativity theory (advanced after the above ideas, but similar) says that light travels in the universe in such a way as no experiment can show what an observer is doing relative to the universe itself. However, it is interesting that this idea was only put forward after such an experiment failed to show that the earth moved through the universe around the sun!
I am not at all sure what you are talking about in all that. However if you are trying to get at the idea that we need an absolutely still point by which to judge everything else and that no other judgment is valid without it, I disagree. If you are trying to get at the point that earth is simply to small to be able to find out as much as we would like to find out about the entire universe in terms of movement, then I agree.
OK. Before Einstein, it was generally believed that the universe was filled with a substance called "aether". Since light was known to be a wave, it was thought that it needed a medium in which to oscillate (just as water waved need water in order to exist): this was the aether. However, it followed that motion relative to the aether (which was considered to be absolutely at rest - observations of the directions of starlight demanded that the aether be still relative to the universe as a whole), and hence absolute motion, could be determined using experiments with interfearing light waves. However, the consequent Michaelson-Morely experiment, set up to measure the earth's movement through this aether around the sun, completely failed. Consequently, Einstein said the aether didn't exist, and that such experiments (and all others) could not show that anything moved absolutely. (Notice, however, that it was conceiveable that the aether itself - along with the universe - moved through absolute sapce).
So, what I'm saying is that if Einstein was right, you cannot tell absolute motion (he believed the term to be meaningless, anyway). But if he was wrong, this means the earth is not moving through the aether around the sun, and this is why the above experiment failed. The Michelson-Gale and Sagnac experiments lend weight to the idea that the aether does exist, and orbits the earth (along with the universe) every day.
I don't know whether to believe this idea. Of course, some aspects of relativity have been scientifically verified; but that doesn't mean that all of it is correct. If this view is untrue, it would mean that although the forces experienced, and observations of the positions of stars, would be the same no matter what was moving (as per point 1), the actual motion of the earth relative to the universe could be detected by experiments with light.
Been done.
If you are correct, then relativity theory is wrong. Of course you are free to disagree with it, but the majority of scientists will disagree with you.
4. Modern scientists also believe that the universe would look pretty much the same no matter you were in the universe.
No, that's totally wrong. I have never read that at all.
It is aptly called the
"Copernican Principle". It was aptly taught to me by a university astronomy professor. (You are the one holding up the ideas of scietists against the clear teaching of scripture). It states there is no reason that the earth should be special in any way. Funny, because that's the same
philosophical (not scientific) idea that drove Copernicus to his unprovable ideas, and the same one that allows so many to suggest there are ETs out there.
Thus one is left with three options: nothing 'moves' in an absolute sense - the term is meaningless; you can't tell what moves - science works out the same both ways; or you can tell, and the reason scientists think you can't is because they failed to measure the earth's motion. Thus the earth has no motion.
The earth's motion, and our solar system's have both been measure. The first in comparison to the latter and the latter in terms of both stars called cepheid variables and measurements dealing with light and redshifts.
As I keep telling you, the laws of physics that give you these results are true relative to the
universe. However, I contend that it is the universe itself that is moving! No scientific data can prove one view above the other.
Whichever way you want to go, science hasn't disproved the Biblical statement that the sun goes around the earth!
The Bible never, ever states that. It uses the same idiom -- sun rise, sun set -- that we use today.
I showed you loads of verses that said it. You just ignored them (and also told us one of them wasn't even inspired!), and decided that they didn't mean what they plainly said. Please tell me (from the Bible), did the sun, or the earth stop moving during Joshua's long day? What about Psalm 19:4-6? Why is the sun like a strong man ready to run a race, if it's the earth, not the sun, that moves? Yes, here is your figuraive language. Your problem is that it doesn't mean anything if the sun isn't moving. And what is the sun's circuit if it doesn't orbit the earth? Or is it only an
apparent circuit? If so, is its heat (verse 6) only apparent, too?
But I'm getting sick of this discussion. I've provided plently of biblical (and scientific) evidence that the universe rotates about the earth every day. Whether the earth is slap-bang in the geometrical centre of the universe, I cannot know; but if the universe is spinning around us (which it is), then there's absolutely no reason why aliens would be anywhere else. However, if you choose to ignore what the Bible
says, you can believe in aliens all you like. This is my last post on here. I pray these messages at least made someone think. Finally, to all of you with whom I conversed: I'm sorry if we disagreed, but I hope we can all still be friends.
Your friend and brother,
Bartholomew
Perhaps I'm not being clear on the subject.
