Extraterrestrial Life and Baptist Theology

[Phillip]

Okay, Bartholomew, I understand what you are trying to say---that is the planets orbit the Sun which is orbiting the Earth. If this were true, then you have a BIG problem. Orbital mechanics would be all wrong because in this case since in your world the earth 'appears' to orbit the Sun but it is the Sun orbiting the Earth, then Mars orbiting the Sun would not appear to be in an outer orbit of the Earth. Did that make sense? Not really, but to put it simply, I could not send a spacecraft to Mars using my knowledge of orbital mechanics if it was truly occuring the way you say it is because Mars would not appear to be orbiting with the Earth. That part of movement of the solar system would not 'fit' in your 'relative to Earth' viewpoint. Doesn't work--you never did answer my question about 'where does space end its rotation around the earth?'

I loved your post Helen, only you could find a debate for 'apples and beef'

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
If space is rotating around the earth where, in fact, does it quit rotating (at what altitude).

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 ]

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
to put it simply, I could not send a spacecraft to Mars using my knowledge of orbital mechanics if it was truly occuring the way you say it is because Mars would not appear to be orbiting with the Earth. That part of movement of the solar system would not 'fit' in your 'relative to Earth' viewpoint.

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.

Doesn't work--you never did answer my question about 'where does space end its rotation around the earth?'

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)

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Bartholomew:
Sorry, Helen, forgot to answer this post of yours. I'm assuming you're refering to the special theory of relativity. However, that theory does not require what you suggest. Firstly, special relativity applies only to straight-line motion, not rotations. And secondly, in the geocentric model, the speed of light with respect to the universe itself is (or at least might be!) constant. However, this means that if the universe itself is spinning about the earth, then the further out you go, the faster the rotational speed of light will be with respect to the earth. Thus distant galaxies will not be going faster than the rotational speed of light, because the rotational speed of light is much faster out there!

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? So, you are also having to change the velocity of all of the stars tremendously with each other because a star 1 light year away seen at the same place each night would have to 'match' the speed of a star 200 light years away only as perceived from Earth. In reality, WOW, what a mess of calculations.....and differences in speed to keep the stars essentially in the same location night after night (or revolution after revolution)..according to your theory.

 

[Phillip]

Helen,
Can you provide me with approximate light speed in our age so I can calculate with some accuracy the approximate distance a 24 hour rotating universe would equal or exceed it? I know our orbital rotation is not quite 24 hours, but that is close enough. Without running calculations does my calculation of less than one light year distance sound right?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by w_fortenberry:
By the way, what is voyager I's distance from earth?

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 ]

 

[Helen]

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

 

[Paul of Eugene]

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

 

[Bartholomew]

Originally posted by Phillip:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bartholomew:
And secondly, in the geocentric model, the speed of light with respect to the universe itself is (or at least might be!) constant. However, this means that if the universe itself is spinning about the earth, then the further out you go, the faster the rotational speed of light will be with respect to the earth. Thus distant galaxies will not be going faster than the rotational speed of light, because the rotational speed of light is much faster out there!

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)

 

[Johnv]

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.

 

[Helen]

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...

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Helen:
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...

Uh, Helen if we are Labouring 'under' the Sun does that not mean the Earth is lying on its side? After all this time, I thought direction in space was relative--the Bible just proved me wrong.
Hmmmmmmmmm, now there you go with another tangent we can take. Actually, I'm trying to get some kind of award for posting the longest subject. How close am I?

Bartholomew, You're right, it is fruitless to argue science; your mind is hardened by your interpretation of a "figure of speech" which has been used since man was created. This has NOTHING to do with what the Bible says about Jesus rising from the dead, the six day creation OR the omnipotence of God. I will say that your theory may work on an extremely limited scale, but once distance is added, the idea of a universe circling the Earth in 24 hours is extremely limiting,based on the fact that you also say that the relativity theories remain the same. You don't have to answer but I again ask one final question. Since you are obviously smart enough to study the papers (which I have read and still disagree with--sorry you were wrong on that issue) then you should be smart enough to answer this question. If a star is one light year from earth how fast is it traveling (specifically) and if it is 200 light years away what is its orbital speed (specifically) and are you going to have to change the rate of light speed as it leaves the star and heads toward Earth because the light from the far star will take 200 years to arrive so this further makes your calculations---well, you tell me? Just like Helen, I can quote all sorts of strange prophetic scriptures. Do you think the antiChrist will actually, physically, have more than one head and climb out of the ocean?

[ October 23, 2002, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Helen:
approx 186,000 miles per second
or, more exactly
299,792.458 km/sec

Thanks Helen, as much as I used that number I kept thinking 146K for some strange reason. We had to do our own calculations of light speed vs. doppler effect of the spread-spectrum signal from the GPS constellation for the older style cruise missile because at the time the off-the-shelf military decoders weren't as accurate as we could get by pulling some tricks by comparing both the commercial AND military codes, so we made our own special calculations bringing the accuracy much tighter (needless to say, you can see it can usually fly through the building, let alone window it was fired at. It was fascinating work, although I still have problems when wars break out and these nasty things are used, because they DO NOT miss. I know this doesn't have anything to do with ET, but maybe ETs will not see us having to use such destructive weapons, if God decided to create other intelligent life. To probably end this subject, unless others want to post, my conclusion (at least my thoughts) are that we will find lower life-forms such as bacteria and possibly plant-life and possibly even lower animals, but I think man heads the list of the created intelligence with the exception of the angels, fallen angels and possibly other heavenly beings that may serve God. If there were to be intelligent life I don't think they would be in the image of God and that includes "choice" of destiny. I don't think Jesus would die again on other planets. But, I do like the X-files, but "the truth is out there---in the Bible."

[ October 23, 2002, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[Phillip]

This was an accidental post and can be deleted if the moderator wishes.

[ October 23, 2002, 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Phillip ]

 

[w_fortenberry]

Paul of Eugene,

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

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.