Featured Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

Beekoss, sumzeen ees moving. Off zaht, vee kahn bee seertuhn.

 

The framework used to reach the stars is definitely suspect. It isn't curiosity or the quest for knowledge that drives modern space exploration. It's the desire to cast off the "bonds" of God's revelation. The holy grail of their quest is extraterrestrial intelligence. (The science fiction genre would be dead without it.) But they will settle for a bacterium, or something that may hint of one on a rock supposed to be from Mars.

We need a new creation story, and a new destiny, and that is what modern cosmology is all about. Any evidence that might hint at purpose or directed processes is tossed out for the favored naturalistic assumptions. The drive to establish the new creation story as the reality is what drives space exploration.

But the closer they look, the worse things get for them. Hubble observed the galaxies receding from the earth and each other, an observation that can be explained only if the earth occupies a position somewhere very near the center of the observed expansion—UNLESS, we assume that 3d space itself is expanding in an unbounded universe, and that the expansion is uniform. (And from this point of view, the universe is flat.*)

Now we can assume that Hubble's observations would be the same observation of an astronomer on a planet in a galaxy far, far away. It would look to him like HE was in the center of expansion too.

So, that must be the reality, because if the reason we're here is really the result of natural processes, it is highly improbable that the earth would occupy the center region. That sounds too much like purpose. No, Naturalism demands a purposeless existence with death as its destiny.

*I find it amusing that cosmologists mock the fabled flat earth cosmology of ancient times, and yet their basic, naturalistic assumptions lead them to conclude a flat universe.

 

Geocentricity, Heliocentricity, Relativity.

It's all about meaning. Tell me one technological or medical advance that depends upon or is hindered by one of those cosmologies. They exist simply to explain the observations of astronomers. They do nothing for mankind. They do nothing to feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, free the slaves, or sail the ocean. (Well, a geocentric model is the preferred model for navigaton.) As far as mankind is concerned, Newton's laws are good enough. They breakdown the farther one looks into our solar system, but then the new physics breaks down the farther out one looks too. There simply is no naturalistic, grand unified theory. As the scale changes, so do the laws.

But then, the whole purpose of the stars is to link man on earth to Heaven. The firmament showeth His handiwork. Christ's reference to the behavior of the closest star wasn't about photosynthesis, it was to say something about the character of God, and how the elect should emulate that character. Abraham was told to look at the stars for an example of what God would do for him. God humbled Job's highmindedness by directing his attention to the stars.

The stars are still fulfilling their purpose. There is simply a new priesthood telling us what it all means.

 

Relatively geocentric, you mean. But the Institute of Navigation is casting doubt on a fundamental tenet of Special Relativity:

Contrary to the assertion of Special Relativity, the speed of light is not always constant relative to a moving observer. The Global Positioning System (GPS) shows that the speed of light in the Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) non-rotating frame remains at c relative to the frame, but not relative to an observer or receiver moving in that frame.
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=981

​

 

Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe
A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/419984/big-bang-abandoned-in-new-model-of-the-universe/

Old article, but relevant.

 

The impossibility of absolute rest necessitates the meaninglessness of absolute motion, and is a presumption only, itself based on the assumption there is no absolute space by which absolute motion and rest can be measured. So even in your safe little conclusion, you have to begin with untested, arbitrary assumptions about the nature of the universe.

In your same train car, there is a lamp in the center. As you're passing the observer outside the train car, you switch on the lamp. (remember, your train car is moving very close to the speed of light) The theory of Special Relativity will say that the passenger will see the lamp illuminate both ends of the car simultaneously, but the observer outside the train car will observe each end illuminate at different times. To one observer, the ends of the car are illuminated simultaneously; to the other, each end is lit at different times. So what really happened? You can't know, and it makes no scientific sense to speak of the observations of one observer as being more true than the observations of the other, because we can assume either observer to be at rest, and each set of observations can be equally justified by the theory. And that is what is meant by "coordinate system." A coordinate system is not mere geometry, it's a model with laws and theories.

 

I'm going to quote, again, the article cited in the OP. You keep thinking that Aaron is saying these things. But it's not. It's physicists.

Here we go:

3. What does modern science say about geocentricity?

Many attempts were made to prove that heliocentricity was true and geocentricity was false, right up until the early 1900's. All such attempts were unsuccessful. The most well-known of these is the Michelson-Morley experiment which was designed to measure the change in the speed of light, due to the assumed motion of the earth through space, when measured in different directions on the earth's surface. The failure of this experiment to detect any significant change played an important role in the acceptance of Einstein's theory of special relativity.

The theory of special relativity holds as a basic assumption that the speed of light will always be the same everywhere in the universe irrespective of the relative motion of the source of the light and the observer. The ability of special relativity to successfully explain many non-intuitive physical phenomena which are manifested by atomic particles when moving at speeds greater than about one-tenth the speed of light seems to corroborate this assumption. Thus, the failure of the Michelson-Morley experiment (and all other experiments of similar intent) to detect any motion of the earth through space is understood by modern science in terms of relativity rather than geocentricity.

Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate. It asserts that it is impossible for a human observer to determine whether any material body is in a state of absolute rest (i.e., immobile in space). It claims that only motion of two material bodies relative to one another can be physically detected. According to this theory the geocentric and heliocentric viewpoints are equally valid representations of reality, and it makes no sense whatsoever scientifically to speak of one as being true and the other false. This shift in emphasis from an either-or argument to a synthesis and acceptance of both viewpoints is summed up by the well-known astronomer, Fred Hoyle, as follows:

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is 'right' and the Ptolemaic theory 'wrong' in any meaningful physical sense.[1]​

Relativity is the theory which is accepted as the correct one by the great majority of scientists at present. However, many science teachers and textbooks are not aware of this, and it is not uncommon to find heliocentricity taught as the progressive and "obviously true" theory even today.​