Heliocentricity: What's It Good For?

[Aaron]

Now that we know what Relativity really teaches, that heliocentricity and geocentricity are really just different, equally valid frames of reference, and that no one has really proven that the earth moves in relation to the sun or vice versa, I ask again:

Heliocentricity: What's it good for?

 

[Aaron]

It's good for doctrine. That's all.

 

[Aaron]

Animals didn't begin to eat meat just a man didn't until after the flood. Then and only then did the animals not live in peace with man and each other. So prior to the flood the Animals could very well have been in a totally different state. Noah most likely had the same ability to communicate with the Animals in order to get all the species on the Ark. But it all ended after the flood. What say the science books on this? So if they are wrong on the carnivores they too can be just as wrong on the Heliocentric model of the solar system.

To which I replied . . .

Yes, they could, and I would encourage you to look into the claims of heliocentrics and how they arrived at their conclusions. Paleontology and astronomy are completely different sciences, and one needs to understand the philosophies that are at work in each and what guides their interpretations of the evidence.

And I did look into it, and I am the one who found out that the heliocentric model is not the scientific certainty that I thought it was. That doesn't make the geocentric model any more certain, but it certainly has neutralized the hermeneutics based on heliocentricity.

 

[InTheLight]

Heliocentricity: What's it Good For?

Apparently it's good for several threads, a couple of spin-off threads, and an opportunity for Aaron to have conversations with himself.

 

[revmwc]

To which I replied . . .



And I did look into it, and I am the one who found out that the heliocentric model is not the scientific certainty that I thought it was. That doesn't make the geocentric model any more certain, but it certainly has neutralized the hermeneutics based on heliocentricity.

Now that you are thinking look at this,
Joshua 10:
"12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.
13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
14 And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel."

Then we see Habakkuk 3:11 "The sun and moon stood still in their habitation: at the light of thine arrows they went, and at the shining of thy glittering spear."

Finally we see 2 Kings 20:
"9 And Isaiah said, This sign shalt thou have of the Lord, that the Lord will do the thing that he hath spoken: shall the shadow go forward ten degrees, or go back ten degrees?
10 And Hezekiah answered, It is a light thing for the shadow to go down ten degrees: nay, but let the shadow return backward ten degrees.
11 And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward, by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."

Now the Holy Spirit inspired authors say that the Sun and Moon stood still and stayed. They also state that God brought the shadow of the Sun back ten degrees. That being said if the Sun is stationary as the Heliocentric model says then what had to happen for the Sun to stand still and the moon to stay?

Wouldn't the earth have to be stopped in its orbit? Also wouldn't the rotation of the earth have had to stop?
If yes think again of Newton's Law of Inertia, what
"An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an unbalanced force. An object in motion continues in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." If the earth's rotation was stopped in order for the sun to stand and the moon to be stayed then would the oceans and rivers stay in motion?

If to move turn the earth in order to move the 10 degrees back then wouldn't again the earth not just stop but a direction change, how would that affect the oceans and gravity?

But if the Earth is stationary and spinning stationary on its axis, then holding the orbit of the Sun and Moon would make perfect sense and the law of inertia would have to be stopped and gravity would not be effected. So what is Heliocentric good for to help the evolutionist in there theory, right?

 

[Aaron]

I'm not convinced of a stationary earth. Quite frankly, I've been raised to think otherwise, and, everything else we can see would suggest that the earth is in orbit around the sun, but that's assuming God did not place the earth in the center of the universe.

And that's an assumption only.

But the implications are huge. The motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty.

 

[revmwc]

I'm not convinced of a stationary earth. Quite frankly, I've been raised to think otherwise, and, everything else we can see would suggest that the earth is in orbit around the sun, but that's assuming God did not place the earth in the center of the universe.

And that's an assumption only.

But the implications are huge. The motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty.

So how do you see the Bible stating that the Sun stood still and the moon stayed and God moving the shadow return backward ten degrees. If the Sun is stationary, what would happen for it to stay for nearly a day? Wouldn't that mean the earth would need to stand still so the Sun could appear too?

Joshua 10:12-14; Habakkuk 3:11 and 2 Kings 20:10-11. these must be answered for a Helocentric system what would occur for this to happen? The law of motion with the waters, the law of gravity with the earth standing still, what would happen with these laws?

 

[Aaron]

The very definition of "miracle" is an interference or suspension of natural laws. It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun. I could just as easily ask what kept the sun in the sky? The best evidence is that it is stated the sun stopped. If it was really the earth that stopped, why not just state it that way?

That's the question.

 

[revmwc]

The very definition of "miracle" is an interference or suspension of natural laws. It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun. I could just as easily ask what kept the sun in the sky? The best evidence is that it is stated the sun stopped. If it was really the earth that stopped, why not just state it that way?

That's the question.

So the Sun stopped which would mean?

 

[Aaron]

That's what I'm asking the self-assured relativists on the board.

 

[Aaron]

But the book of Joshua can be easily dismissed as indirect communication from God, and therefore not scientifically or even historically viable.

So one would do better with a direct quote of Christ, who said His Father maketh His sun to rise. If the reality is that the earth is moving us into the sunlight, why not say it that way?

 

[InTheLight]

[QUOTE="Aaron, post: 2227062, member: 791" The motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty.[/QUOTE]

LOL. Sure. Explain the retrograde movements of the planets.

 

[Aaron]

I'll try this again:

ITL says, "The earth goes round the sun. It's a scientific certainty."
Scientists say, "No it isn't."
ITL: Our observations prove it.
Einstein: The motion of the earth cannot be detected by any optical means.
ITL-ilk: What about ballistics, Coriolis, the Foucault Pendulum?
Einstein: The motion of the earth cannot be proven by any terrestrial based experiment.

So, I'll amend my statements. Scientists say the motion of the earth is not a scientific certainty. I've posted enough documentation. You say the earth goes round the sun. Great. I get it. But the only reason you think you know that is because of what you were told that scientists have said.

Because of Relativity, you're behind the times—according to scientists.

Not according to Aaron. Your beef is with them.

 

[TCassidy]

Explain the retrograde movements of the planets.

Well, isn't it obvious they turn around and go backwards in their orbits! It must be true. I can see it happening!

 

[Aaron]

Whatever. I'm sure you've independently established all the postulates of the theories of Relativity with your own experiments and you don't need to read the works of scientists to know anything.

No one is saying the motion of the earth can't explain anything. They're saying one can assume the earth to be at rest and still explain (not merely calculate) the observations according to the theories.

They're saying that. Not me. Do you think that retrograde motion and parallax phenomena are unknown to these guys? Heck, the only reason YOU know anything about it is because of what you've read, and what you've been told. That's it.

And now that you're finding out that the very ones who are telling you that the earth moves, are the very ones who say that a motionless earth can be equally justified by the laws of physics as they now stand, and by the theories you think have been fully established and are the true reality, you got your panties in a bind and say that I need to be able to justify their sayings.

Well I don't.

Now, why don't you answer the question. If the reality is that the earth carries us into the light of the sun, why didn't Christ just say it that way?

 

[InTheLight]

Well, isn't it obvious they turn around and go backwards in their orbits! It must be true. I can see it happening!

Must be true since the earth doesn't move!
Laugh

 

[Aaron]

The very definition of "miracle" is an interference or suspension of natural laws. It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the earth that stopped and not the sun. I could just as easily ask what kept the sun in the sky? The best evidence is that it is stated the sun stopped. If it was really the earth that stopped, why not just state it that way?

That's the question.

Meant to say : It seems an act of futility to cite natural laws as proof that it was the sun that stopped and not the earth.

 

[Aaron]

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

Oh, wait. They just didn't have Cassidy and co. to illuminate them. It has been proven true. They know that because . . . um . . . they've read some books.

Einstein's theory of general relativity adds further to the debate . . . 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.
​

[ibid]
​

So, again, no one here is saying the earth doesn't move (except revmwc), the statement has been that scientists say the motion of the earth has not been proven by experiment, and a proper understanding of the theories of relativity allow the geocentric point of view as a scientifically valid model of reality equal to that of the heliocentric model.

They're saying that. Einstein said it. Hawking says it. The doctor who wrote the cited article is saying it.

But I'll take Cassidy and co. over them, because they've read some books.

​

 

[Aaron]

But Cassidy and co. also claim to believe and understand the Scriptures. This is where revwmc has you guys by the boys:

If the reality is that the earth moves, why didn't Christ say just say it that way?

A) Christ did not know better.
B) Christ condescended to the ignorance and superstition of His disciples.
C) Christ was speaking in relative terms.​

 

[revmwc]

A few more things from scripture for the Geocentric Model:
Genesis 1:1-2,
"1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters."
Verse 2 the earth is what is centered in on by God and Darkness was upon the deep, but the Spirit moved and there was light, "3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." But notice God didn't call the light sun or moon, but day and night.

Let's skip ahead a little:

"14 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:
15 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth,
18 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day."

What did God create on the fourth day?
Light in the firmament, its purpose to divide the day from the night. The purpose from verse 15 to give light to the "EARTH" the sun exist for the Earth not the earth for the Sun. Verse 16 God made on this the fourth day, two great lights, the greater to rule the day and the lesser the night and he made the stars. So God made the Sun to give light to the Earth, now if God made the earth first as scripture is clear on then how could the first circle the second?

Secondly the great lights were created for a purpose, for signs, seasons, days and years. So it these were created for that purpose and the earth existed first again how can the earth orbit around something that did not exist until the fourth day?

Solomon the wisest man said in Ecclesiastes 1:"5 The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteth to his place where he arose."

The run rises and goes down and hasteth to his place where he arose, sounds like the Sun is moving not the earth in an orbit.

Isaiah 40:
"21 Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?
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:"

Again we see God sits upon the circle of the earth thus Science proven of a round earth, and that the heavens spread out from the earth not the Sun.

Proof upon proof from scripture of a geocentric model, as the earth is the central figure of the solar system. The Earth was without form and void, the earth was, God center of creation is the Earth.

If God's center of creation is the Earth then what does everything else have as its center? Surely not the sun.