Earth Centered Universe

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Oops, i posted under my wife: Thankful's account.
I gotta remember to log her out and long
me in

Phillip: "I think I have just been insulted, but you know
how slow some of us Okies are. A lot depends on
what part of Oklahoma are you from."

Central part of the state, furterest from the bad
influnece non-okies

Yep, the earth is flat. I mean, like, no spice whatsoever

 

Phillip: "Go OU!!!!! Most people around here
have a theory that the universe revolves around Norman."

"Theory", you should have said "natural law"

Phillip: "Well, have a good day and tell me when
you are ready to start your pyramid scheme."

Roger, roger! on the good day. As for the
pyramid scheme, i'm having a bit of trouble with
the perpetual motion machine. A bit of trouble
called natural laws or laws of nature. Seems
that in the TV operation it only picks up TV
signals that are 1200 years old. Well there
are no 1200 year old TV signals to pick up,
speaking earth-wise here. The automobile version
also has problems. I have to stop every 22
miles and pump the 12-gallons of gasoline out.
As you probably know, gasoline stations are
build to pump gas INTO a car not OUT OF a car.
Anyway, all the problems i'm sure can be ironed
out.

Which reminds me of a joke.
I asked God if to Him was not a thousand years
like a minute?
"Very so" said God.
And isn't to God a million dollars like a penny?
"Very so" said God.
So i asked God for a million dollars.
I'm going to get my million dollars
in a minute

 

I think you and I may be a lot closer on theory than I am with others.

I'm flattered.

 

My point is that, while I am arguing for a geocentric universe, I am not entirely sure what type of universal model you are proposing in opposition to that view. All of your arguments have been for the heliocntric view of our solar system, but you had not, at the time, presented a universal model which differed from the geocentric model.

In response to my question, you proposed a model of an infinite universe. In which model, all points can be said to be the center.

I would like to ask you a few questions regarding this view. First, the Bible states that God created the celestial objects for the purpose of giving light on the earth.

How then does an infinite universe fulfill that purpose?

Second, we can deduct from the red shift of light from distant stars that our universe is expanding. Can you explain that expansion in light of an infinite universe?

Third, our measurements of the CBR are not entirely consistent. They are too consistent for us to claim that the earth is nearer to one edge of the universe than another, but slight inconsistencies still exist. If, however, our universe were infinite, the nature of the CBR itself would demand that there be no inconsistencies. How do you explain this?

The mere fact that God is capable of finding us regardless of our position within the universe is not being brought into question. However, the Bible states that:

How does an infinite universe "declare" the glory of God? How does it so well explain His eternal power and Godhead that the world cannot claim ignorance as an excuse? And how does an infinite universe so well explain God's glory and power that it is able to produce in men a faith capable of calling upon that God in prayer?

 

Please notice the topic heading for this thread. If I am not mistaken it reads, "Topic: Earth Centered Universe." If that is the correct topic heading, then the question of what is in the center of the universe is very much a part of that topic, and the question of the shape of the universe, being necessary to determine the location of its center, is equally an important part of the topic. Therefore I ask you again, "What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?"

Please allow me the honor of laughing. One cannot propose a center unless one is able to define a shape. Therefore, an understanding of the shape of the universe is crucial to any universal model.

I am very familiar with hypersphere theory and would be more than willing to discuss any such model which you might propose.

 

The two prevailing theories are the the universe is shaped either like a saddle (with the contents of the universe on the surface of the saddle shape)or like a globe (with the contents of the universe on the surface of the globe). Of course, these are 3d models that plot the universe in 2d. In actually, you'd have to up the dimensions by one.

I tend to side with teh saddle shape, but it's more of a personal view than a scientific one.

The center of the universe has so far not been plotted. However, since we know that everything is moving away from everything else (red shift), that we're all moving away from a center, We just haven't figured out where that center is yet.

 

If memory serves, my previous post about a "saddle" shaped universe is what you're referring to an infinite universe. I happen to agree with this, as I said earlier, since an infinite universe would point to a single beginning at a single point (in the beginning).

 

I don't think the saddle shape fits into that one, probably the globe shape fits into that better. But I'm admittedly not too familiar with Einstein's views on the subject of universe shape.

 

Phillip,

Before I respond to your answers, could you please confirm whether or not you can provide answers to the two questions which you appear to have overlooked?

They are...

...and...

 

John,

You have proposed a saddle shaped universe consiting of at least four dimensions. In light of this model, can you answer the questions that I presented to Phillip?

 

For W_Fortenberry:

As for the universe declaring the glory of God, as I interpret that verse, I don't see any particular view of the universe's nature being relevant to how the universe does that, whether in the greatests distances it curves back on itself or continues infinitely - how could that make a difference in declaring the greatness of God? But rather, I see the psalmist vindicated when God's Spirit takes occasion to approach the human spirit, using the greatness of creation as an example to convince the soul of the greatness of God, the reality of the universe to convince the soul of the reality of God. It is not a logical debate that the universe engages us in, it is rather a great impression, a vast impact, which God can then use to bring us to Him.

 

Although not wanting to get back into the debate, this statement shows why you were unable to accept the geocentric position I advocated. The system I propose works because the universe is an entire system. As Ernst Mach observed, the universe as a whole produces the effects so often interpreted as being due to the earth's rotation. I thank you for your honesty, Philip.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Phillip,

Thank you for this admission. I was under the impression that you were claiming to be an expert in cosmology simply because you helped design the guidance systems of some satelites. All of the questions which I asked were designed to show that you were not considering the universe as an entire system. To demonstrate why it is necessary to view the universe as such, allow me to ask you another question about which you may be more familiar.

When Copernicus put forth his heliocentric model, he depicted all the planets travelling around the sun in perfectly circular orbits. He chose to use circular orbits "because everything in the world is delimited by this form." In other words, unless acted upon by some opposing force, any orbiting body will naturally assume a circular path around the object orbited. Why then do the planetary orbits form eliptics and not the circles which Copernicus suggested?

 

Would anyone like to continue this debate?

The question of the moment is, "Why then do the planetary orbits form eliptics and not the circles which Copernicus suggested?"

Is anyone able to answer this question?