Gallileo was wrong!

There probably are, just as there are a few Baptists and others that hold this view.

 

Can you give us a link to that web site.

Until recently I would have not thought much of it except that Robert was having some fun, but in recent months I have read enough in scientific not religous periodicals enough to realize that I don't know enough to comment on what science can prove.

I take no ownership of these thoughts I will just try to pass on what I have read

In one magazine a few months ago I read that using Einsteinian math you could just as easily prove that the Sun revolves around the earth as the earth around the sun apparently it is all relative.

In another more recently I read about this new model of the universe that has everyone all excited that may replace current model as it solves many of the previously unexplained problems. I know I don't have this one exactly right but I will try anyway. Imagine a ribbon put together to form a circle now connect the sides of the ribbon and form a cicular cylander, that is the universe pick any point along that ribbon and you are at the center.

Sorry I don't have a reference I was thumbing thru the magazines at a book store.

God Bless

 

Show me. I would be interested in scolding them. </font>[/QUOTE]

There were some posting on this board a while back, but I can't find the threads right now. As for websites, probably the most well-known site is run by a Baptist and is at:
http://www.geocentricity.com/

 

From the little I see from looking over Robert Sungenis' site he holds to a literal interpretation of Genesis.

God Bless

 

Does this mean that the earth is the center of God's creation and that Heaven rotates around the Earth? Or is heaven not constrained by anything of the earth?

 

Wasn't there some nutcase on this board a ways back trying to assert that the universe is geocentric? Something about "if God makes the sun only appear to rise, then how do we know his Son only appeared to rise".

Geocentricity, like flat earth proponents, are nothing more than biblical literal extremists attempting to insert biblical meaning that doesn't exist.

 

I agree wholeheatedly!

I like Robert Sungenis and his Catholic apologetics, but I think he is wrong, wrong, WRONG here.

Somewhere on that site, someone showed a bit of the math that has two masses attractive to one another.

Assume two sphrical masses, both are equal in all respects, mass, diameter, etc. Without any rotating component added, they would both be attracted to each other and eventually come together in a collision!

But if there is a rotational component, and for simplicity a circular rotation, both masses would rotate around each other equally!

Try taking two balls, such as billard balls, of equal weight (say 1 lbs. each) and have them constrained by a strong string - two balls tethered on a string, say 3 feet apart.

Now, if you take one of the balls and rotate the whole mess around and around and around, like you would do with an olympic throwing ball on a teather, and then let go.....

While in flight, both balls would rotate around each other! Each orbit would be the same for each!

Now, if two bodies in the universe were of equal mass, as say, nearly so in some double-star systems that have been observed, guess what?

They rotate around each other! They have an imaginary "string" tethering each other, which is, of course, the mutual gravitational attraction to each other.

This is not a perfect analog, as gravitational attraction is not a "rigid string" at full stress, but more like a bungie cord that stretches. But if you were to do that same expiment with a stiff bungie cord between your two billard balls, for example, you would get approximately the same result.

Try doing that with a billard ball tied to a bowling ball with a stiff bungie cord. Twirl the combination by the smaller ball (as the bungie cord gets longer and longer in it's stretching) and let go. In flight, the billiard ball will be rotating it's head off, almost exclusively around the bowling ball!

As I have done with the billard ball/bowling ball experiment, as one body is made lesser and lesser in mass, it's motion around the other body is less and less, until a case is found where the smaller body is rotationing nearly exclusively around the larger.

In fact, while the earth is much smaller in mass then the sun, there is an almost imperceptable "wobbling" in the orbit of the sun caused by the gravitational tug by the earth. But because the Sun is of much greater mass, the earth MUST rotate around the sun for the reasons given.

How's that for some amateur celestial medhanics without using a bit of math?

One further thing: there was a discussion of receeding space crafts leavng the solar system for outer space. (An open orbit where they will not come back.)

All one has to do is measure the tiny frequency shift that occurs in the space craft's radio signal to see the rotation of the earth around the sun! As the earth moves toward the space craft, the signal's frequency would shift upwards slightly, and when receeding a half-year later (and receeding away from the space craft) the radio signal would lower in frequency.

This is called the DOPPLER effect!

The effect effects sound, light and radio signals as well.

While riding in a train, notice the sound of a ringing warning bell at a vehicular crossing. As you approach the crossing, the "ding, ding, ding" is higher pitch, but rapidly lowers as you pass adjacient to it and go beyond.

And I have ridden in enough trains to notice the effect!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

I suppose Geocentricity has fruitcakes just as Heliocentricity has fruitcakes. However if Geocentricity proponents can scientifically show that their positions are as sound as Heliocentics positions then there might be something to it. Albert Einstein was not infallible and much of what we accept about how the universe works is taking his formulas as written in stone. There is some evidence that what he believed to be true, may not be true...such as the speed of light being constant.

Don't get me wrong I am not a proponent of Geocentricity, but I don't think we should right them off either. We really may be the center of the universe. Makes sense to me, but I am not a scientist. Anyone here believe in the Big Bang? Do you guys know that the father of the Big Bang Theory was a scientist and devout Catholic priest.

Before his theory gained acceptance, the scientific community believed the universe to have no beginning and to have no end..... No God involved. Fr. Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang with a little alteration to Einstein's theory. It is said that Einstein listened to his presentation and at the end stood up and clapped and said it was the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation for creation he had ever heard. The Big Bang theory shattered the myth that the universe did not have a beginning and would not have an end.

The scientific theories are interesting, but my faith is not dependent on any of them. God is the Creator and as far as I am concerned the earth and humans are the center of His creation.

God Bless

[ June 23, 2003, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Kathryn ]

 

Kathy concluded her message with:

AMEN, Kathy!

And interestingly, the physical laws are of God's creation as well, which goes against the idea the the Grand Canyon is no older them about 6,000 years. Bah, humbug!

But that's another thread, another on-going argument - Creationism V. Evolution.

I better stop while I am ahead!

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Pillar and Foundation of Truth, the Church. (1 Tim 3:15)

 

Well at least he got "one thing" right.

After all - if the Genesis 1-3 story is "myth" the Gospel is corrupted.

In Christ,

Bob

 

The former slave preacher John Jasper, who was a very successful pastor in Baltimore up until the early 1900s, was the author and preacher of one of the most-often preached sermons of his time. He reportedly preached, "De Sun Do Move," over 3500 times, supporting the geocentric theory.

But that was the 19th century...