Earth Centered Universe

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "Okay, so call me uninformed, Who is Kepler and
what does he believe?"

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) described the
mathametics of planetary motion. His
maths used an ellipse for the tracks of
the planets (including earth) around the sun.
His raw data was the location of the planets
from the earth collected by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601).

His mathametical formuale are still used
to determine where it will appear that the
sun and planets are in the sky of earth.
They can also be be used to compute where the
planets and sun will appear in the sky
of the moon, but nobody is currently there
to check it out. The Kepler mathametical formuale
can be used on Mars to determine the position of
the sun and planets in the Martian sky, but no
human person is there to check it out. The automata
programed with Kepler to find the sun (for sellar power)
always found the sun, using Kepler's formuale.

Kepler's opinions on on ETs have NOT been verified.
His mathametical formuale have been verified for
the purposes for which they can be used. Kepler's
religious opinions have not been verified.

If you assume that the planets and sun go around the
earth, the necessary computations can be made
by computer (programed by people). This would add
to the world's computing cost, i'd guess about
46$Billion (25£Billion). 46$Billion is about what
Americans spend yearly on junk food. Who wants
to take the Americans' junk food away from them
just for different computations?

If the whole universe revolves around the
world, the maths get messy. There might not even
yet be enough world gross product to pay for the
computing power needed for the world society
to funciton. Therefore i will stick with Kepler's
mathametical formuale for the world's compuations
of planetary stuff. It's truth in actuality is
trivial compared to the economics of other methods.

 

Hello,

Sorry, Helen, if I'm misunderstanding your view on the inspiration of Ecclesiastes.

However, you also wrote:

Well, does he??? If you say "yes", then you obviously don't think God is truthful. If you say "no", then we're in the curious position of a book being inspired, and yet not written by the Holy Spirit. I had always assumed that those who said the Bible was inspired meant they thought it was written by God. Do you not???

Sorry if I got something wrong, but I'm just way confused...

Where does the Bible say or hint that you can't believe everything in Ecclesiastes??? Does this rule apply in other places in the Bible?

 

Of course I don't give up. I just don't have time to argue the thing properly. And of course it's not a requirement for a Chrsitian to believe the geocentric system. But then it's not a requirement for him to believe in the 6-day creation, the innerancy of scripture, believers' baptism, once-saved-always-saved, or almost any other doctrine. But that doesn't mean we shoudld all stop talking about them and contending for the truth!

 

And I've read too much scripture and too many physics papers to know you're wrong.

Hey, bro, I'm a bit sick of you keep accusing me of not answering questions that I have done. I answered that one in the ETs thread. However, I don't think you've ever answered how we can allow God to just give us appearances when talking about the sun, but not anywhere else. What's so special about the sun that God just tells us what it looks like; but the rest of the time he tells us the truth?
But you're right. The discussion has fizzled out. It is my opinion that I believe what the Bible says; but you want to believe Newtonian (discredited) science. Neither will change the other's view.

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

The false geocentric universe means that over our north pole and our south pole, there would be no movement of the universe, other than axis rotation. Since in fact, the earth is tipped at about 23 degrees from its orbit around the sun, please explain how the false geocentric model explains the movement of the sun from north to south and back, resulting in changing seasons. If the sun is "wobbling", please explain why a wobbling sun is not seen by the numerous spacecraft that are out of reach of the earth's gravitational affects.

Also, you did not explain to me why the Coriolis effect exists, which I brought up in the previous thread. (Gustave Gaspard Coriolis 1792-1843 said, since the globe is rotating, any movement on the Northern hemisphere is diverted to the right, if we look at it from our own position on the ground; while movement on the Southern hempsphere does the opposite). This is the effect that causes hurricanes to form in counterclockwise circles in the northern hemisphere and clockwise circles in the southern hemisphere.

It's well known to workers of Santa Fe that railroad tracks wear out faster on one side than the other. River beds are dug deeper on one side than the other. In the Northern hemisphere the wind tends to rotate counterclockwise as it approaches a low pressure area. Next time you drain your pool, you'll notice the same thing.

Finally, you say you rebutted my information regarding Voyager. You did not. You failed to also explain the variations in the velocity of Voyager1 relative to Earth. Since the Earth does in fact rovolve around the sun, the Earth's orbit around the Sun forces it to move away from V1, resulting in a relative velocity that is slower. When the orbit forces it nearer, the velocity is faster. The false geocentric model does not adequately explain this, given that V1 is far enough away from the Earth and the Sun to not be affected by their gravity.

 

...of course it's not a requirement for a Chrsitian to believe the geocentric system. But then it's not a requirement for him to believe in the 6-day creation, the innerancy of scripture, believers' baptism, once-saved-always-saved, or almost any other doctrine. But that doesn't mean we shoudld all stop talking about them and contending for the truth!

A six day creation, scriptural inerrancy, OSAS, etc, are matters of opinion and conviction. A sun-orbiting earth is a matter of fact.

 

Hi Philip,

Yes, I would like to be a politician in the future - although I'm guessing that's an insult and not a compliment!
But what rude comments did I make to you (or anyone else)? Don't you think it might be rude of you to keep accusing me of not answering questions when in fact I have done? But whatever, I'm truly sorry if I upset any of you - I really didn't mean to. Am I forgiven?

However, I quoted more than just "figures of speech". Your analyisis that they are figures of speech is not because of anything the Bible says, or because of anything the people of the time believed or knew; but because you're just trying to keep hold of your "scientific" idea that the earth goes around the sun. You steadfastly refuse to tell me why the sun is special in that the Bible only refers to what appears to happen to it; and yet the Bible tells us what really does happen with everthing else. Also, I can't find any record of you or anyone else explaining why we can't believe the clear teaching of scripture that "the sun stopped" on Joshua's long day. If the sun only appeared to stop, did the Jews only appear to defeat their enemies? But you seem to be allowing science to interpret the Bible.

OK - can this be the last time? The universe you beleive in is geometrically correct. Therefore Voyager photos will be totally explicable in your system. From the point of view of the distant stars, the earth orbits the sun and spins on its axis. From the point of view of the earth, the universe spins around it every day. The two are geometrically identical! The motions of sun, earth, etc. relative to each other (and it is their relative motion that determines the photographs) is the same in both systems. The Voyager photos are correct because the solar system moves in such a way to give you those pictures - sun going around the earth, and planets going around the sun.

Sorry - I wasn't trying to imply I'd read more than you (I almost certainly haven't!). I was saying that I'd read enough to know that you're wrong in saying the earth goes around the sun.

Sorry - I don't know what you mean.

It looks the same to all of us! The only disagreement is which thing is actually stationary! The relative motion is all the same.

Finally, as regards my saying I don't have time for this debate. I'm sure it hasn't escaped your attention that I'm about the only person on this board advocating an un-moving earth (w_fortenberry believes that the earth is at the center, but it also rotates). Therefore it is very difficult for me to keep up with the posts required to sustain the debate. It requires me to either ignore some people's questions (which seems to really annoy you), or write about three times as many posts as anyone else (see what happened in the ETs thread). Consequently, I'm trying to stop debating (though as you can see, I can't really resist the temptation!) I'm really sorry if this seems dishonest or an easy way out or something, but I honestly don't have time to do this. My studies (in theoretical physics! ) really do require me to spend less time at the Baptist Board!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Actually, I pointed out that a rotating universe was not only geometrically identical to your system; but that as a consequence it would produce the same results (e.g. Foucault's pendulum, equitorial bulge, etc.) Why does a rotating earth explain these affects? Why should it? At the end of the day, you'll come up with Newton's laws of motion as the "reason why". But why should Newton's laws be true? I'll tell you: no reason. They're just empirical. They're just what's observed. The geocentric model explains them, too, but with a rotating universe. Why should that work? It just does. Same reason why yours does. Also, you still stick with the Newtonian idea of physics being about absolute behaviour of matter in absolute space, rather than relational between the bodies of the universe. Which (if either) of these positions is true cannot (at least at the moment) be determined by anyone within the universe. But someone outside the universe knows what's going on...

 

In other words, you're not going to bother addressing my valid points which invalidate the false geocentrism model.

 

Well, how's this generation supposed to understand it? We tell our children the earth rotates - I've never seen anyone have trouble with that yet. And do you know, that's exactly the argument that the liberals use to discredit 6-day creation???

That the sun rose seemed pretty clear to everyone before Copernicus. If Copernicus had produced "science" that told us Jesus had only appeared to have risen from the dead, would you have believed him???

Good question, bro! It seems to me that there are two possibilities:

1. That since the universe is geocentric, then all directions pointing up from the earth's surface are in fact "up" by God's definition. Consequently, the sun is always rising and going down.

2. A friend of mine once remarked that "geocentricity" actually should be "Jerusalocentricity"; i.e. that God's "coordinates" are with reference not only to the earth, but to Jerusalem, or at least the middle east (Jesus went "up" from Jerusalem at his ascension). Thus, the sun doesn't actually rise on Mexico - it's actually going down when it's there. However, the Bible doesn't talk about the sun rising in Mexico - only in the near-east.

OK - that's my last post. If you like, I'll continue this with you by e-mail, where it won't be me verses everyone else!!!

Your friend and brother,

Bartholomew

 

Phillip and Johnv,

You have posted much in opposition to geocentricity, but you have not presented any other model which you can claim supports your statements. You have mentioned heliocentricity as a possible substitute, but it appears that you are referring to a heliocentric solar system and not a heliocentric universe. We also propose an apparent heliocentric solar system. However, we propose a geocentric universe. What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

[ October 31, 2002, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: w_fortenberry ]

 

\o/ Glory to the Lord \o/

\o/ Praise be to Jesus \o/

Phillip: "You lay out a position,
state that the Bible says it and it can't be
wrong (although it is a figure of speech
accepted over the world for centuries) throw
out a few 'non-main-stream' physics papers of
which some don't really relate directly to your
theory or back it up, then make at least one
rude comment to your brothers or sisters in
Christ and then complain that you don't have
time ... "

Yes! a primer for board posting
Tell you what, soon as i have time
i'll start a "discussion" on the flat earth.

BTW, Brother Phillip, would you like to get in early on my
perpetual motion machine stock pyramid sales
scheme (guarenteed 10% Biblical sales method).
In fact i think we might even name the scheme
with your name, if you reply soon

 

What do you propose to be the shape of the universe? And what do you propose to be the center of that shape?

The shape of the universe and what's in the center of the shape are a completely different topic than the false notion of the universe rotating around a stationary earth. Neither the solar system nor the earth are anywhere near the center of the universe. The only way to have a discussion on the "shape" of the universe is to introduce 4th dimentional references, which will only serve to more confuse the discussion at hand. Since the shape of the universe is of no concern in regards to geocentric fallacy, I will bow out of that for now.