Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

[revmwc]

I am not arguing against what the scientists are saying. I am arguing against your (Aaron's) interpretation of what the scientists are saying. Much like when two people argue the same scripture as saying different things. No one is disagreeing with what the scientists are saying. I am disagreeing with what you say they are saying.

To start with, your assumption about the light on the train is wrong. According to Hawking, there is no absolute time (as we know that from relativity and speeds closer to light how time seems to slow down), and so it would appear as if both ends of the train light up at the same time to an outside observer. Your own quote in your second post discusses this.

To set up this excerpt, Hawking is discussing two people trying to measure the speed of light at two different distances, but the light reaches them simultaneously.


This is a fundamental key in relativity. Hawking goes on to say that since the speed of light is an absolute, any individuals at different distances trying to measure the time it took light to travel will disagree on the time, since light will hit all points at the same time. We have to remember that time slows down to an outside observer as we approach the speed of light, so this makes sense.

Now, to your next point (post), when the scientist is talking about heliocentricity vs geocentricity, look at his last paragraph you cited. "The relation of the two pictures is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation..." And that's what I've been saying all along. But the idea of a geocentric universe has been disproven over and over again. If one wants to say that the sun is orbiting the earth, they are not necessarily wrong from a relativistic point of view. However, if they want to say that the earth is the center of the universe, they are wrong.

Reality as defined by what we can view in a physical sense is not always the same as reality as defined by laws. We must distinguish the two when we are speaking of reality, otherwise the discussion turns into little more than an argument over semantics.

And so, before the discussion is taken any further, I need to know if you are speaking of a geocentric universe, or a geocentric galaxy, or even just saying geocentric as in the sun rotates around the earth, and all other bodies in our system rotate around the sun. If it's the latter, then there is no debate. It's a coordinate system and that's all. If it's the middle, there's still not much debate. If it's the first (geocentric universe), then science has disproven it time and again, most notably by the absence of any absolute rest.

Edited because the autocorrect kept correcting "geocentricity" to "egocentricity"

So does hawking believe God created all of it or is he an atheist as he says. He starts with and incorrect premise if his view starts off with no God and atheism

 

[Sapper Woody]

So does hawking believe God created all of it or is he an atheist as he says. He starts with and incorrect premise if his view starts off with no God and atheism

According to what I've read so far, Hawking is an atheist as far as the technicality of the term. He started his studies in order to "get inside the mind of God". His conclusion through study was that God was not necessary in order for all of this to have come to pass. Notice, he doesn't (at least in what I've read of his) say that there is no God, just that it wasn't necessary for a God to create everything.

However, I'm not sure what bearing this has on the discussion. One doesn't need to know that there is a God to understand that if you drop something that it falls, or the greater the mass of an object the greater the pull of gravity, or figure out that speed is equal to distance divided by time. Whether or not he believes there is a God doesn't discount any of the scientific discoveries he's made.

 

[revmwc]

According to what I've read so far, Hawking is an atheist as far as the technicality of the term. He started his studies in order to "get inside the mind of God". His conclusion through study was that God was not necessary in order for all of this to have come to pass. Notice, he doesn't (at least in what I've read of his) say that there is no God, just that it wasn't necessary for a God to create everything.

However, I'm not sure what bearing this has on the discussion. One doesn't need to know that there is a God to understand that if you drop something that it falls, or the greater the mass of an object the greater the pull of gravity, or figure out that speed is equal to distance divided by time. Whether or not he believes there is a God doesn't discount any of the scientific discoveries he's made.

Nothing except if you start a theory based on false information what do you get? God created the earth on the first day according to God in scripture and one the 4th day he created the Sun, moon and stars thus a geocentric model is the only one that aligns with scripture. But if you take the need for God out of the equation then you start with a false premise and come up with false conclusion

 

[Sapper Woody]

Nothing except if you start a theory based on false information what do you get? God created the earth on the first day according to God in scripture and one the 4th day he created the Sun, moon and stars thus a geocentric model is the only one that aligns with scripture. But if you take the need for God out of the equation then you start with a false premise and come up with false conclusion

Except for you are starting with the assumption that since the earth was created first, everything else revolved around it. It is an assumption only. However, we know that God created light before he created a source for that light, which is backward to our intuition. He even had day and night before he placed the very things that show us what is day and night. In fact, three days went by without the very thing that shows us the passage of time, and God hadn't even divided the light from the darkness yet. Essentially, what God did we can't comprehend. He let three days pass from morning into evening without there being such a thing yet. In my mind (and I'll admit that this is pure speculation), this shows a rotation of the earth before there was even a sun to begin with. Because the only thing before there were sun, moon, and stars to declare a day would have been one full rotation of the earth. So, genesis itself (to me) shows that the earth is rotating and not stationary.

It's very possible (in fact proven) that even though the earth was created before the rest of the universe that God did not design the earth to be the center of the universe.

So, just like the flat earth people say that only a flat earth aligns with scripture, saying a geocentric model is the only model that aligns with scripture is wrong.

 

[revmwc]

Except for you are starting with the assumption that since the earth was created first, everything else revolved around it. It is an assumption only. However, we know that God created light before he created a source for that light, which is backward to our intuition. He even had day and night before he placed the very things that show us what is day and night. In fact, three days went by without the very thing that shows us the passage of time, and God hadn't even divided the light from the darkness yet. Essentially, what God did we can't comprehend. He let three days pass from morning into evening without there being such a thing yet. In my mind (and I'll admit that this is pure speculation), this shows a rotation of the earth before there was even a sun to begin with. Because the only thing before there were sun, moon, and stars to declare a day would have been one full rotation of the earth. So, genesis itself (to me) shows that the earth is rotating and not stationary.

It's very possible (in fact proven) that even though the earth was created before the rest of the universe that God did not design the earth to be the center of the universe.

So, just like the flat earth people say that only a flat earth aligns with scripture, saying a geocentric model is the only model that aligns with scripture is wrong.

The flat earth

Except for you are starting with the assumption that since the earth was created first, everything else revolved around it. It is an assumption only. However, we know that God created light before he created a source for that light, which is backward to our intuition. He even had day and night before he placed the very things that show us what is day and night. In fact, three days went by without the very thing that shows us the passage of time, and God hadn't even divided the light from the darkness yet. Essentially, what God did we can't comprehend. He let three days pass from morning into evening without there being such a thing yet. In my mind (and I'll admit that this is pure speculation), this shows a rotation of the earth before there was even a sun to begin with. Because the only thing before there were sun, moon, and stars to declare a day would have been one full rotation of the earth. So, genesis itself (to me) shows that the earth is rotating and not stationary.

It's very possible (in fact proven) that even though the earth was created before the rest of the universe that God did not design the earth to be the center of the universe.

So, just like the flat earth people say that only a flat earth aligns with scripture, saying a geocentric model is the only model that aligns with scripture is wrong.

Geocentricity as I remember never taught that the earth doesn't spin on its axis it just doesn't orbit. So again that aligns with scripture for the creation. Second in the new heaven and new earth there is no sun, moon are stars because God is the light, God's light shined upon the earth until he hung the Sun moon and stars. Of course Moses gave us more information about God's creation in Exodus 20:11" For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." as well as Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
So God created all in six literal days. That first day there was no light. The flat Earth theory never matched scripture as we see Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Psalm 103:12I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. The earth is a circle according to scripture. Therefore the flat earth folks were wrong. Scripture is very clear, the earth is the center. Genesis 1:14 shows the reason for the Sun, Moon and Stars, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" These have a specific purpose however everything God did centered upon one thing "the earth."

 

[Sapper Woody]

The flat earth

Geocentricity as I remember never taught that the earth doesn't spin on its axis it just doesn't orbit. So again that aligns with scripture for the creation. Second in the new heaven and new earth there is no sun, moon are stars because God is the light, God's light shined upon the earth until he hung the Sun moon and stars. Of course Moses gave us more information about God's creation in Exodus 20:11" For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it." as well as Exodus 31:17, Jeremiah 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
So God created all in six literal days. That first day there was no light. The flat Earth theory never matched scripture as we see Isaiah 40:22 "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:" Psalm 103:12I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. The earth is a circle according to scripture. Therefore the flat earth folks were wrong. Scripture is very clear, the earth is the center. Genesis 1:14 shows the reason for the Sun, Moon and Stars, "And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:" These have a specific purpose however everything God did centered upon one thing "the earth."

You say that scripture is very clear that the earth is the center, but I disagree. It is very clear that MAN is the center, as in the center of the focus of creation. None of the passages you cited shows any indication that the earth is the center, however. For instance, the stars show the seasons for every planet that circles them in their own respective systems. This is not something that is exclusive to earth.

I will readily agree that man is the center of the focus of all creation. I do not believe in extraterrestrial life forms; at least, not any intelligent ones. I do believe we might find bacteria, etc; but not necessarily. But, nothing that I see in the Bible necessitates that earth be at the center of the universe.

 

[Aaron]

I am not arguing against what the scientists are saying. I am arguing against your (Aaron's) interpretation of what the scientists are saying. Much like when two people argue the same scripture as saying different things. No one is disagreeing with what the scientists are saying. I am disagreeing with what you say they are saying.

Well, then we'll disagree. When you think coordinate system, you are thinking geometry only, not a system. I'm trying to tell you the physicists say the theories of Relativity justify a geocentric model as well as a heliocentric (meaning the "laws" work with either model).

You're saying they're not saying that, and now you're trying to argue Relativity with the assumption that it proves one model to be more true than the other when they come right out and say that it makes no scientific sense.

I'm not going to argue the theory. It doesn't matter. The scientists have said what they say. If we can't agree on how the article in the OP is to be read, then why are we even arguing the theories?

None of them are open to a geocentric model. To them that means a coincidence so improbable as to be impossible. They are dyed in the wool Naturalists. It isn't that they have malice for Creationism (though some do). It's that Creationism is just crazy talk. So they feel that rationality forces them make the assumptions they do about the nature and structure of the universe. It isn't the science that drives them, it's their religion.

I myself am not convinced of a geocentric model, but reading John Hartnett, Russell Humphreys, and Jason Lisle has me pretty much convinced the universe is bounded, has an edge and center, and that our galaxy is very near the center.

And they use Relativity to justify their models WITHOUT having to invoke dark matter and dark energy.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Well, then we'll disagree. When you think coordinate system, you are thinking geometry only, not a system. I'm trying to tell you the physicists say the theories of Relativity justify a geocentric model as well as a heliocentric (meaning the "laws" work with either model).

You're saying they're not saying that, and now you're trying to argue Relativity with the assumption that it proves one model to be more true than the other when they come right out and say that it makes no scientific sense.

I'm not going to argue the theory. It doesn't matter. The scientists have said what they say. If we can't agree on how the article in the OP is to be read, then why are we even arguing the theories?

None of them are open to a geocentric model. To them that means a coincidence so improbable as to be impossible. They are dyed in the wool Naturalists. It isn't that they have malice for Creationism (though some do). It's that Creationism is just crazy talk. So they feel that rationality forces them make the assumptions they do about the nature and structure of the universe. It isn't the science that drives them, it's their religion.

I myself am not convinced of a geocentric model, but reading John Hartnett, Russell Humphreys, and Jason Lisle has me pretty much convinced the universe is bounded, has an edge and center, and that our galaxy is very near the center.

And they use Relativity to justify their models WITHOUT having to invoke dark matter and dark energy.

Seeing as we're not going to get anywhere with the current subject, I'd like to use your last post a transition into the discussion over the bounds of the universe. Currently it's not something I've looked into much, but am interested in looking into.
As a physics student I find discussions of the universe fascinating.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[revmwc]

You say that scripture is very clear that the earth is the center, but I disagree. It is very clear that MAN is the center, as in the center of the focus of creation. None of the passages you cited shows any indication that the earth is the center, however. For instance, the stars show the seasons for every planet that circles them in their own respective systems. This is not something that is exclusive to earth.

I will readily agree that man is the center of the focus of all creation. I do not believe in extraterrestrial life forms; at least, not any intelligent ones. I do believe we might find bacteria, etc; but not necessarily. But, nothing that I see in the Bible necessitates that earth be at the center of the universe.

But this discussion was dealing with the two models and we all know man is the reason for even the earth's existence as God placed it here for man benefits. God created everything man needed and man fell and the earth was cursed. However, one question here, if the earth came into existence before the sun then how as the Heleocentric model states does the earth orbit around the sun? The earth spins on its axis for gravitational pull to exist. But does the earth truly orbit or is it stationary?

 

[Aaron]

But this discussion was dealing with the two models and we all know man is the reason for even the earth's existence as God placed it here for man benefits. God created everything man needed and man fell and the earth was cursed. However, one question here, if the earth came into existence before the sun then how as the Heleocentric model states does the earth orbit around the sun? The earth spins on its axis for gravitational pull to exist. But does the earth truly orbit or is it stationary?

All good questions. The physicists themselves say the motion of the earth hasn't been proven by any experiment or observation. It's just that it has to move. No one can prove the Sun formed first. It's just that it has to have formed first. Anything else is just crazy. (That's their thinking.) I read that if they put the Michelson-Morely experiment on the moon, and they still get a null result, then Relativity will be established. If they don't, Relativity is wrong, and the earth is motionless.

 

[Sapper Woody]

But this discussion was dealing with the two models and we all know man is the reason for even the earth's existence as God placed it here for man benefits. God created everything man needed and man fell and the earth was cursed. However, one question here, if the earth came into existence before the sun then how as the Heleocentric model states does the earth orbit around the sun? The earth spins on its axis for gravitational pull to exist. But does the earth truly orbit or is it stationary?

Well, I had a nice reply typed out, but then something happened, and I lost it. So here I go again:

Bro, man is indeed the reason for the existence of the entire universe. He is the reason for the sun, moon, stars, other galaxies, etc. However, this does not necessitate the earth being at the center of the universe. If we were to speculate that, based on only the fact that the earth was created first, then we can speculate anything; for instance, I could say that God purposely didn't put us at the center because of the possibility of more space debris destroying the earth due to a gravity pull there. Is that true? Could be. It's all speculation.

The fact is, we don't know where the center of the universe is, and likely never will. If it's infinite, then technically there's no center except at the center where everything is expanding out from. And if that's the case, then we're definitely not at the center. If it's bounded, then there is a center somewhere, but there's no reason to think that the earth is there.

Now, I have to address your sentence:

The earth spins on its axis for gravitational pull to exist.

The earth's rotation is not necessary for gravity. Gravity is a result of the mass of the earth. If the earth were larger, there would be a greater gravitational pull. If it were smaller, there'd be less. The spinning of the earth actually affects this in the opposite way, albeit in a very minute way. In fact, the spinning of the earth does not cause any type of weight change on the poles, but at the equator, things are .35% lighter. So, if the earth stopped spinning and you were a 200 pound man, you'd gain in between 0 to 0.67 pounds depending on where you lived.

Now, the last question is what this whole thread has been about, and there have been pages of discussion. What we agree on so far is that as a coordinate system, both a heliocentric and geocentric view are valid. In my stance, anything beyond that and we have to go with a heliocentric view. Certainly if you look at the orbits of the other planets around the sun, and then try to map the sun as orbiting the earth, things get a little weird.

Also, it takes some mind bending math to try to show that the sun, which contains 99.86% of all the mass in our solar system, could be caught in the gravitational pull of the earth, and so orbit the earth. It's just not feasible from anything I've read.

To discuss more to your point, however, the Bible has nothing in it that necessitates a geocentric viewpoint.