Heliocentricity: Behind the Times

[Aaron]

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.

. . .

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.

http://www.icr.org/article/geocentricity-creation/

 

[Aaron]

According to [Einstein's theory of general relativity], 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.

http://www.icr.org/article/geocentricity-creation/

So. Does the earth revolve around the sun? How do you know?

 

[Alcott]

The brightest star we see is Sirius. Do you know how far away it (actually 'they') is? I'll skip a step and say you know, or can find, that it is 8.8 light years away. With a geocentric model, where bodies go around the earth, Sirius would be going around us at about 427 million miles per second! If you put any stock in Einstein's theory, what does it say about traveling at 3000 times the speed of light?0

 

[TCassidy]

The brightest star we see is Sirius.

Actually the brightest star visible from Earth is Sol (the sun) with a magnitude of -26.74. Sirius has a magnitude of -1.46.

 

[Aaron]

I'm fairly certain that Einstein, and almost absolutely certain that Hawking were aware of Sirius and the observations of astronomers when they made their statements.

But I'm told that gravity affects the speed of light. Where more gravity is, then light and bodies are faster. If the earth is our reference, then there is tremendous centrifugal forces at distant regions, and light and bodies can move at speeds much greater than the speed of light.

If we take the earth as the system of reference, we have

the centrifugal field (III, 9, p. 70) 4^-, which assumes enormous

values at great distances. Hence the g's have values that
differ greatly from the Euclidean values of (99). Therefore the
velocity of light is much greater for some directions of the
light-ray than its ordinary value c, and other bodies can also
attain much greater velocities.

https://archive.org/stream/einsteinstheoryo00born/einsteinstheoryo00born_djvu.txt​

 

[Aaron]

A recent discussion with a youth got me on this kick. He considered the doctrines of Christianity to be influenced in no small part to bad science, and the event to which he alluded? You guessed it. The myths surrounding the trial of Galileo.

So I began looking into this thing some more, not to consider a geocentric model, but to counter the reasoning with things better than the usual appeals, i.e., Aristotelian science of the day, that's not what the Scriptures really say, blah, blah, blah. So my first question (to myself before I even thought of posting it here on the BB) was what knowledge truly depends upon a heliocentric view of the solar system? In other words, would the U.S. Constitution never have come about? The polio vaccine? Cell phones?

I couldn't think of one technological or medical advance that would not be if the prevailing notion were still that the sun moves around a stationary earth.

And neither could anyone here on the BB.

 

[Aaron]

Does any knowledge of God depend upon a heliocentric model? What would most think of Paul if we found out he had a geocentric view of the universe? Considering ancient Hebrew cosmology, he probably did. Could he be receiving revelation from God while staying ignorant of something so basic? It's not as though the Hebrew scriptures say nothing of the sun. And was Jesus perpetuating a myth when He said His Father "maketh his sun to rise"?

If Paul were a contemporary of Galileo and expressed his opinion as one who had the Spirit of God based on the geocentric expressions in the Old Testament that Galileo was wrong, would that affect our views of his authority and his letters?

Of course it would. We all at some point regard the Apostles as infallible. It was Paul who said God's eternal power and godhead were known by the things that are seen. Why listen to the Apostles about the Creator, whom they cannot see, when postulating fantasies about the creation, which they can see?

Unless those areas in which they are erroneous are so inconsequential as to render any discovery thereof to be vain and trifling.

 

[Aaron]

It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, . . . and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. –St. Augustine, The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20.

The insignificance of Earth was as much a commonplace to Boethius, King Alfred, Dante, and Chaucer as it is to Mr. H.G. Wells or Professor Haldane. Statements to the contrary in modern books are due to ignorance. . . . the spatial insignificance of Earth, [was] asserted by Christian philosophers, sung by Christian poets, and commented on by Christian moralists for some fifteen centuries, without the slightest suspicion that it conflicted with their theology (C. S. Lewis, Miracles).​

I am not arguing for Geocentricity. I'm content to accept the conclusions of those who've actually made observations and performed the experiments. My search isn't to discredit Heliocentricity, but to find a weapon to nullify it when it's raised as a litmus test of rationality.

And I found it.

 

[Aaron]

I found it in the words of their own apostles, that asserting the "truth" of heliocentricity makes no scientific sense.

Your science teacher is wrong.

The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: 'the sun is at rest and the Earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems. Einstein, The Evolution of Physics.​

So which is real, the Ptolemaic or the Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true. As in the case of our normal view versus that of the goldfish, one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the Earth or the sun to be at rest. Hawking, The Grand Design.​

 

[Aaron]

If there is no scientific truth to the heliocentric model over the geocentric one, then both are relegated to the realm of philosophy and preference.

 

[Aaron]

The trial of Galileo was, in reality, not a battle between science and religion, but a battle between two religions for the authority to define reality in the institutions of science, law and education.

 

[agedman]

The trial of Galileo was, in reality, not a battle between science and religion, but a battle between two religions for the authority to define reality in the institutions of science, law and education.

A lot of reasoning on this thread to draw a single sentence conclusion (which I take as correct - not that my validation is meaningful or carries any water from the well to the horse trough or brings any illumination).

 

[InTheLight]

But I'm told that gravity affects the speed of light. Where more gravity is, then light and bodies are faster. If the earth is our reference, then there is tremendous centrifugal forces at distant regions, and light and bodies can move at speeds much greater than the speed of light.

Who in the world told you this?

 

[Aaron]

Who in the world told you this?

You didn't see the quote and citation? That's General Relativity.

ITL: Almost right most of the time.

 

[InTheLight]

You didn't see the quote and citation? That's General Relativity.

ITL: Almost right most of the time.

Yeah, I saw your little out-of-context excerpt. Gravity does not act as a force on light, either slowing it down or speeding it up. It does, however, act on observers, making it appear to an observer that it is changing speed.

The speed of light is a constant.

 

[Aaron]

The speed of light is a constant.

Only in the special theory. Not in the general theory. You're almost right again.

 

[InTheLight]

Only in the special theory. Not in the general theory. You're almost right again.

I noticed you didn't touch this:

Gravity does not act as a force on light, either slowing it down or speeding it up. It does, however, act on observers, making it appear to an observer that it is changing speed.

 

[Aaron]

I didn't have to. I've already said the speed of light is not constant in the theory of general relativity, and cited it. Case closed.

 

[InTheLight]

I didn't have to. I've already said the speed of light is not constant in the theory of general relativity, and cited it. Case closed.

No, no, no.. you said:

But I'm told that gravity affects the speed of light. Where more gravity is, then light and bodies are faster. If the earth is our reference, then there is tremendous centrifugal forces at distant regions, and light and bodies can move at speeds much greater than the speed of light.

Gravity cannot make light "speed up" or "slow down".

Not only that but your statement, "Where more gravity is" is a totally dumb statement. Gravity is a constant, mass is the variable.

 

[Aaron]

I'll bet at some point you told someone that Jupiter has more gravity than the earth. You merely hate the fact that modern physicists are saying there is no more truth to the heliocentric model than to a geocentric one, so you want to turn your attention to my wording.

It doesn't matter. In a field of gravity, the speed of light is relative. Not constant. And there is no difference between the effects of gravity exerted by centrifugal forces or the mass of an object.