OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 05:35:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Cosmos?  (Read 5558 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
JamesR
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 4,777


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« on: March 16, 2013, 06:49:22 PM »

One concept I read all throughout the Scriptures and amongst the writings of the Church Fathers is that the cosmos NEEDS a Creator and that the "uniqueness and majesty" of it--what contemporary folks call "fine-tuning"--proves that the cosmos needs a creator, and that anyone who rejects it is akin to a fool who would reject that a boat needs to a captain to venture on course. The Bible even says that the crafting of the universe bears witness to God, and I know that the Church rejects any teaching on the cosmos which rejects the need for a creator.

But this is something that I--as a posterboy for western logic--have trouble accepting. Not because I reject the Church, but simply because I find it a faulty argument. What is so "fine-tuned" or "unique" about the state of our universe? "Fine-tuned" and "complexity" and all those other adjectives are merely manmade concepts which describe our perception of the universe. They have NO basis in science, nor are they objective like math. They are merely sentiments of our thoughts and feelings--our attempt to apply manmade, relative qualities to an objective, non-manmade object. It doesn't add up to me.

What really makes the state of our cosmos any more special than any of the other countless possibilities? We only see it as special merely because we feel that it is special--we cannot scientifically prove that it is special because concepts like "fine-tuning" are not scientific. Our universe had an equal chance of being different, what makes its present state special at all? It would be like drawing an Ace from a deck of cards and saying that it's special, when in reality, it isn't too special. There was an equal chance you could have picked any of the other cards, and the only reason it seems special to you is because you prescribe this manmade concept of specialness to the "Ace" card. If someone picked a 6 or a Queen, it could just as well be special to him, and you would have no way of proving that the Ace is really anymore special from a philosophical point of view. My view on the universe is somewhat similar; our universe had an equal shot at being different, so it isn't really that impressive that our universe is the way it is right now, and I don't get how it is "fine-tuned." Thus, I don't get how it bears witness to God.

Thoughts?
Logged

Quote
Wherever goes JamesR goes, he is there.
-Orthonorm
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #1 on: March 16, 2013, 07:28:23 PM »

Although I was not churched when I was young, that matter was never a question for me.  I always believed in God, but I never thought about it much when I was younger.

My personal thoughts are that I came to disagree with what some people claim is scientific fact.
I was briefly in a protestant fundamentalist Church when I was searching for a genuine Church many years ago, and they gave me a bible commentary (by MacDonald as I recall), and I had an incident which led to a new view of the cosmos.

I expected that commentary to be a work of God, and as I began a study of Ecclesiastes, I read that his commentary became weak and limp wristed when speaking about a verse that would imply geocentrism if taken literally.  I became quite angry that the commentary which I placed so much faith in was so manifestly uncertain about science or any thing else in the bible.  I perceived that MacDonald doubted a part of the bible, and I considered his commentary worthless and threw it in the trash.

Although I had never even bothered to think about it before (and of course still consider it irrelevant to salvation), I took the position that what the bible said about those things was inerrant, and I became a geocentrist that night because that was consistent with the bible's teaching.  It would not matter to me if heliocentrism had been the way it was, but it was not the case.  Pretty every one (atheists and protestants alike) disagreed.  Because of the attitude of some people (particularly at Church), I was motivated to go to the extent of ignoring technology to make a realistic experiment and reasoned that my own eyes observed that the sun moved across the sky every day.  The sun is moving and not the earth.  I reckoned that if modern science is so allegedly true, then why does it need a crutch like technology or some textbook to brainwash people about it?

I looked far and wide for a geocentric organization of any kind and found nothing except for the flat earth society which I considered too extreme and good bit beyond what I was searching for, but which I ultimately contacted because I knew of nothing else.  They sent me a flyer (this was in the mid-1990's) from which I discovered the existence of an english flat earth movement in the nineteenth century which was based on a book written in 1865 by a guy who had taken the time to tediously develop astute refutations to all objections to that astronomy. 

I got the book through interlibrary loan and photocopied it.  I was converted by the second chapter.

I remembered a reference to Cosmas Indicopleustes in Webster's Biographical Dictionary.  He was an Egyptian monk at Saint Catherine's monastery in Sinai who wrote a book defending the early Byzantine Christian view of the world (which turned out to be flat) against the pagan view which was globular.  His book had been translated into english in 1897, and I photocopied it at a local university library.

That aroused my interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and thus it did play a part in my conversion to the Orthodox Church.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #2 on: March 16, 2013, 08:09:28 PM »

Although I was not churched when I was young, that matter was never a question for me.  I always believed in God, but I never thought about it much when I was younger.

My personal thoughts are that I came to disagree with what some people claim is scientific fact.
I was briefly in a protestant fundamentalist Church when I was searching for a genuine Church many years ago, and they gave me a bible commentary (by MacDonald as I recall), and I had an incident which led to a new view of the cosmos.

I expected that commentary to be a work of God, and as I began a study of Ecclesiastes, I read that his commentary became weak and limp wristed when speaking about a verse that would imply geocentrism if taken literally.  I became quite angry that the commentary which I placed so much faith in was so manifestly uncertain about science or any thing else in the bible.  I perceived that MacDonald doubted a part of the bible, and I considered his commentary worthless and threw it in the trash.

Although I had never even bothered to think about it before (and of course still consider it irrelevant to salvation), I took the position that what the bible said about those things was inerrant, and I became a geocentrist that night because that was consistent with the bible's teaching.  It would not matter to me if heliocentrism had been the way it was, but it was not the case.  Pretty every one (atheists and protestants alike) disagreed.  Because of the attitude of some people (particularly at Church), I was motivated to go to the extent of ignoring technology to make a realistic experiment and reasoned that my own eyes observed that the sun moved across the sky every day.  The sun is moving and not the earth.  I reckoned that if modern science is so allegedly true, then why does it need a crutch like technology or some textbook to brainwash people about it?

I looked far and wide for a geocentric organization of any kind and found nothing except for the flat earth society which I considered too extreme and good bit beyond what I was searching for, but which I ultimately contacted because I knew of nothing else.  They sent me a flyer (this was in the mid-1990's) from which I discovered the existence of an english flat earth movement in the nineteenth century which was based on a book written in 1865 by a guy who had taken the time to tediously develop astute refutations to all objections to that astronomy. 

I got the book through interlibrary loan and photocopied it.  I was converted by the second chapter.

I remembered a reference to Cosmas Indicopleustes in Webster's Biographical Dictionary.  He was an Egyptian monk at Saint Catherine's monastery in Sinai who wrote a book defending the early Byzantine Christian view of the world (which turned out to be flat) against the pagan view which was globular.  His book had been translated into english in 1897, and I photocopied it at a local university library.

That aroused my interest in the Eastern Orthodox Church, and thus it did play a part in my conversion to the Orthodox Church.

Appreciated your Trotsky posts on another thread. While I find the notion of a flat earth untenable, I have no problem with geocentrism. As a relativistic liberal, I am still waiting for a convincing argument against it or rather against the notion that all frames of reference are valid.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #3 on: March 16, 2013, 09:56:26 PM »

Appreciated your Trotsky posts on another thread. While I find the notion of a flat earth untenable, I have no problem with geocentrism. As a relativistic liberal, I am still waiting for a convincing argument against it or rather against the notion that all frames of reference are valid.
Thank you.  It is reassuring to hear since I hope that I can avoid offending anyone when expressing any of these viewpoints. 
In spite of my opinion of Trotsky's actions, I do have heartfelt respect for most any sincere Trotskyist and do share some of their views on some things - particularly an Orthodox Christian - the realization of which fact speaks more to the conscience than does any political correctness. 
Do forgive us Orthodox Christians on the far left end of the forum!  Smiley

As to geocentrism, here is a link to the scientific links page of a traditional papist website that endorses spherical geocentrism:
http://www.alcazar.net/origins2.html

You might find some useful "ammunition" therein.  I think that Nathan Martin Gwynne's posts are particularly good.  Some years ago he sent me an essay of his (not listed here) that convincingly refutes the existence of nuclear weapons. 

I will perhaps make another post summarizing some links and basic information on flat earthism for what it's worth.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #4 on: March 16, 2013, 10:20:59 PM »

As far as the moon landings are concerned, Bill Kaysing first refuted them in the 1970's with his book 'We Never Went to the Moon.' David Percy, Bart Sibrel, and numerous others have produced books and videos about this since. Lloyd Mallan wrote an expose of the Russian space program as a farce designed to improve the Soviet image. More recently, a Hungarian writer wrote an informative book about Yuri Gagarin showing that the alleged first man in space lied for the party and the entire thing was Soviet propaganda that never occurred. Corroboration of this comes from Albanian communist leader Enver Hoxha who wrote against Soviet science teams whom he found diseeminating falsified information in his country which is one of the reasons he went with China. While Mao was still alive, the Chinese press asserted that the moon landings are a lie and nuclear weapons are a paper tiger, and the schools in Cuba and other socialist Latin countries maintain that today.

The consensus of the early Church endorsed the flat earth cosmology even before Constantine came to power. It was the pagan scholars who argued for a globular geocentric earth. Christians writers like Lactantius wrote emphatically in favor of a flat earth. What unambiguously unified the Church Fathers was the concept of antipodes which they were against. The existence of antipodes refers to feet on the opposite side of a globe where it rains upwards and men are upside down and plants and trees grow downwards as Lactantius wrote.
'Of the Antipodes, The Heaven, and the Stars'
Divine Institutes Book III, Chapter XXIV
By Lactantius
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.i ... .xxiv.html

The Church Fathers such as Saint John Chrysostomos declared that it is unacceptable to bleieve in the antipodes. However, I should say that although most Christians at that time believed the earth to be flat, what Saint Chrysostomos had in mind theologically was the teaching of another race of men on the other part of the world who were not descended from Adam. The distinction is important because belief in whether the earth is flat or rounded is not important to salvation as Saint Basil declared. I feel that I should mention that the english translation of the word "world" or "Universe" as rounded or hemispherical in Saint Basil's Hexameron must be viewed as referring to the firmament or heavens in order to be consistent with other Church Fathers who viewed the earth as flat as the heaven as domed.

Venerable Bede of England is the first I have found that unequivocally blieved that the earth is globular rather than flat. I suspect that the influence of Islamic science (which preserved the globular teachings of the greeks) had some influence by that time as a close observation reveals that Saint John of Damascus's Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith was more influenced by contemporary science than was earlier Christian writers - probably because he rightly did not consider the natural sciences as essential as the theology. If he did not make any mistake with regard to theology, but only on natural science then the book is good. I would question what Saint John of Damascus wrote in one passage where he wrote that lunar eclipses occur because the moon passes into the earth's shadow. However, I have read that lunar eclipses have been observed in which the sun is still visible in the sky. IF that is the case, then then the darkness overcoming the moon is not the shadow of the earth. I belive the moon is a vessel in the sky which emits light (not reflects it) which is how Saint Basil describes it. Genesis 1 says that the sun and moon are both lights in the sky.

Cosmas Indicopleustes was a monk of the Sinai monastery at the time of Saint John Climacus who wrote a book entitled 'Christian Topography' which refuted the pagan concept of a globular earth. A ninth century copy of this book is on display at the Sinai monastery, and it is mentioned in books published with the monastery's blessing by the American University in Cairo. The ancient Church of Saint George in Madaba, Jordan has a sixth century mosaic map of the world which contains the most ancient map of Jerusalem known to exist. The most exhaustive study of this map was done by Piccirillo using the archives of the Patriarchate of Jersusalem, and he asserts that this mosaic map was commissioned by Cosmas Indicopleustes as was another one in Gaza. He also asserts that Emperor Justinian agreed with Cosmas and publicly spoke to that effect.
'Christian Topography'
By Cosmas Indicopleustes
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/ct/index.htm
Online Chapter of Piccirillo's Madaba Map Book
http://198.62.75.1/www1/ofm/mad/index.html

Circa 400 A.D., Saint Jerome also translated and paraphrased a flat earth cosmological book by a Scythian pilgrim named Aethicus of Istria. Modern infidels have questioned Jerome's authorship of this since about 1850, but prior to that it was accepted.
Cosmography of Aethicus of Istria
Translated and Paraphrased by Saint Jerome
http://www.amazon.com/The-Cosmography-A ... 2503535771

According to this kind of cosmos, the sun and stars are much smaller than imagined by modern astronomy and are only a few few hundred miles away. Jerusalem is located at the geographical center of the earth as the psalm says that God worketh salvation in the navel of the earth. This refers to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ just outside of the Jerusalem city gate which coresponds to Jerusalem's layout at the time of Christ. The exact geographical centre of the world is a specific place in the navel of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre called the Omphalos. It is literally a few feet north of Golgotha and a few feet east of the Tomb of Christ.
This cosmos also includes a great mountain in the far north which is the one the Devil was referring to when he boasted in Isaiah 14. The height of this mountain is taller than the orbit of the sun, moon and stars which revolve around it. Cosmas asserted that the shadow cast by this mountain creates night on the opposite side of the world.
The world is surrounded by a vast sea which is hemmed in on four sides by the four walls of heaven, and the roof is a dome. The Garden of Eden is an actual geographical location in the East. Along the four sides of the world are located the twelve storehouses of the winds - three on each side.
The river that flows west from the garden of eden splits into four riverheads that proceed underground and resurface in this world and flow to the sea. These are the Nile, Euphrates, Tigris, and the Ganges according to most authors. It is possible that underground tributaries of these rivers account for most or all of the world's aquifers. I have been to the cave in the Himalayas from whence the Ganges gushes forth. It is quite striking. I have also been to the source of the Blue Nile in Ethiopia which also originates from an underground river.

Although the book of Enoch is mentioned in Jude's Epistle, it was expunge from Holy Scripture at the Synod of Pergamos because of interpolations. It survived in the Ethiopian bible and has vestiges of the original book. The most notable astronomical part within the Book of Enoch is the Book of the Heavenly Luminaries which describes the twelve storehouses of the winds.

Twelve storehouses of winds are mentioned in 'A Cosmological Tract' attributed to first century Saint Dionysios the Areopagite and has been preserved in Syriac.
A Cosmological Tract
By Dionysios the Areopagite
http://www.sacred-texts.com/journals/jras/1917-07.htm

A movement by devout protestants in nineteenth century England revived flat earth belief in a modified model. The foundational book of that movement was a book by Samuel Rowbotham that refuted modern science's objections to the flatness of the earth.
'Earth Not a Globe'
By Samuel Rowbotham
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm

I might also mention that the most original and ancient cosmology of every nation in the world is a a flat earth cosmology. This was attested by the zealous albeit erudite nineteenth century science historians like Draper or the atheist Andrew Dickson White in his book 'The History of the Warfare of Science With Theology in Christendom':
http://masi.cscs.lsa.umich.edu/~crshali ... /form.html

Finally, the most popular Flat Earth Society website is a poorly regulated and agnostic oriented satire where serious posters are less than one in a million.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #5 on: March 16, 2013, 10:28:12 PM »

For what it’s worth, the photographs of Felix Baumgartner’s recent high altitude dive which depicted a curved earth horizon in the background were faked by having been run through a fish lens to obtain the curvature.

Here is the official photograph which depicts a curved earth in the background after it had been run through a fish lens to make it appear curved:


Here is the same photograph as it actually appeared originally:

Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #6 on: March 16, 2013, 10:35:18 PM »

Gerard Wisnewshki's 'One Small Step' is likely the best book on the moon landings so far published - although I noticed that he did not make use of Lloyd Mallan's 1966 book 'Russia's Space Hoax' which refuted the Soviet space program as mere propaganda at that time:
http://www.amazon.com/One-Small-Step-Great-Dominate/dp/1905570120

'Moon Shadows' by James Beals is also a worthwhile alternative view of the american space program.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080104131143/http://www.futuresunltd.com/sudarshan/MoonShadows/MoonShadows.htm
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #7 on: March 16, 2013, 10:51:18 PM »

In Father Damascene's biography of Seraphim Rose, it records that the books of muslim esotericist Rene Guenon initially set him on the road to pursuit of the truth.  One of guenon's books was entitled 'The King of the World' which recounts a cosmological tradition common to the most antique traditions of every nation in the world.  Namely, a mountain range or ranges in the far north which are taller than any any mountains in the normally habitable world.  Guenon's book gives the names of the tallest of these mountains in each of the various major traditions and languages. 

In ancient pagan cosmologies as well as in early Christian cosmology, the sun and moon orbit this mountain once a day which casts a shadow that constitutes night on the side of the mountain and of the world opposite to the sun.  Saint Jerome believed this, and Raymond Beazeley's description of Cosmas Indicopleustes's worldview in volume one of hsi 1897 book 'The Dawn of Modern Geography' gives a detailed ten page description of Cosmas Indicopleustes's universe and of the many Church Fathers whose views it represented.  The views of Beazeley and other nineteenth century scholars is the opposite of modern agnostic scholars who deny the influence of Cosmas's book on geographers of the middle ages. 

I do not believe in the hollow earth theory, but they do seem to have a lighted on a significant fact.  Marshall Gardner's early twnetieth century book 'Journey to the Earth's Interior' gives an excellent analysis and rebuttal of the claims of arctic adventutrers Cook and Peary and establishes that modern globular charts are erroneous and that regions exist in the far north past which modern explorers have not ventured.

The sixteenth century globularist cartographer Gerhard Mercator actually acknowledged the existence of these mountains which called hyperborea [which were also known to the ancient greeks.  Catherine II of Russia actually sent a naval expedition in search of this land of hyperborea which was planned by the Russian scientist Lomonosov. 
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #8 on: March 16, 2013, 10:53:42 PM »

Tabernacle view of the flat earth cosmos with the heaven in the shape of a dome from a manuscript of Cosmas Indicopleustes:
http://www.henry-davis.com/MAPS/EMwebpages/202C.html
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #9 on: March 16, 2013, 11:54:28 PM »

Appreciated your Trotsky posts on another thread. While I find the notion of a flat earth untenable, I have no problem with geocentrism. As a relativistic liberal, I am still waiting for a convincing argument against it or rather against the notion that all frames of reference are valid.
Thank you.  It is reassuring to hear since I hope that I can avoid offending anyone when expressing any of these viewpoints. 
In spite of my opinion of Trotsky's actions, I do have heartfelt respect for most any sincere Trotskyist and do share some of their views on some things - particularly an Orthodox Christian - the realization of which fact speaks more to the conscience than does any political correctness. 
Do forgive us Orthodox Christians on the far left end of the forum!  Smiley

As to geocentrism, here is a link to the scientific links page of a traditional papist website that endorses spherical geocentrism:
http://www.alcazar.net/origins2.html

You might find some useful "ammunition" therein.  I think that Nathan Martin Gwynne's posts are particularly good.  Some years ago he sent me an essay of his (not listed here) that convincingly refutes the existence of nuclear weapons. 

I will perhaps make another post summarizing some links and basic information on flat earthism for what it's worth.


I do not need ammunition Dionysii, the opposing view has to refute Einstein's theory of general relativity.

In regard to the flat earth hypothesis, one need only go to a flight  tracking website like flightaware, knowing the fuel capacity of the planes involved to realize this notion is not possible. If it is possible because God only made it to be appear impossible please post in the DEAD HORSE   Creationism, Evolution, and Orthodoxy thread. I have more than once proclaimed that this is an attribute of Satan and not God. I have yet to receive a response on this issue.

In regard to Trotsky, both Plato and Trotsky had a negative impact on my life and my dreams for the future.

I am also disappointed.

Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2013, 12:54:55 AM »

In regard to Trotsky, both Plato and Trotsky had a negative impact on my life and my dreams for the future.
My condolences for that experience.  All things work for good to them that love God.  At the very least, I would reckon you have acquired a healthy distrust of these writers.

Carl Sagan wrote an enthusiastic preface to the edition of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution which I previosuly owned.  Reflection upon this fact brought me to the conclusion that the October 1917 revolution and Trotsky's historical record of it was a history written by, about, and on behalf of atheism.  Thus, I threw it away.

For Greek philosophers, I am partial to the Orthodox Christian interpretation of Constantine Cavarnos as he was experienced at distinguishing their errors from those things which they spoke which were true.  Plato believed in errors like metempsychosis (i.e. reincarnation), but he also accurately observed that the human soul is a trinity (reason, ethos, and emotion), and this second teaching of Plato's is in accord with the Christian doctrine that man is made in the image of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #11 on: March 17, 2013, 02:26:41 AM »

In regard to Trotsky, both Plato and Trotsky had a negative impact on my life and my dreams for the future.
My condolences for that experience.  All things work for good to them that love God.  At the very least, I would reckon you have acquired a healthy distrust of these writers.

Carl Sagan wrote an enthusiastic preface to the edition of Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution which I previosuly owned.  Reflection upon this fact brought me to the conclusion that the October 1917 revolution and Trotsky's historical record of it was a history written by, about, and on behalf of atheism.  Thus, I threw it away.

For Greek philosophers, I am partial to the Orthodox Christian interpretation of Constantine Cavarnos as he was experienced at distinguishing their errors from those things which they spoke which were true.  Plato believed in errors like metempsychosis (i.e. reincarnation), but he also accurately observed that the human soul is a trinity (reason, ethos, and emotion), and this second teaching of Plato's is in accord with the Christian doctrine that man is made in the image of God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul

I realize I was unclear. The issue of Trotksy and Plato did not relate to them directly. They intervened in the more important issue of Romance rather than philosophy.

I really posted about your reply#4 above. I think you need to think about this some more. To me it seems like you are accepting an opinion of others that is almost certainly not true. That is what is disturbing to me.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #12 on: March 17, 2013, 03:21:25 AM »

One concept I read all throughout the Scriptures and amongst the writings of the Church Fathers is that the cosmos NEEDS a Creator and that the "uniqueness and majesty" of it--what contemporary folks call "fine-tuning"--proves that the cosmos needs a creator, and that anyone who rejects it is akin to a fool who would reject that a boat needs to a captain to venture on course. The Bible even says that the crafting of the universe bears witness to God, and I know that the Church rejects any teaching on the cosmos which rejects the need for a creator.

I don't think this is a "logical" argument in the sense you mean. It is a poetic statement about the beauty of creation and how it reflects God.
Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #13 on: March 17, 2013, 02:15:05 PM »

I realize I was unclear. The issue of Trotksy and Plato did not relate to them directly. They intervened in the more important issue of Romance rather than philosophy.

I really posted about your reply#4 above. I think you need to think about this some more. To me it seems like you are accepting an opinion of others that is almost certainly not true. That is what is disturbing to me.
Yesterday, I briefly wondered if my flat earth posts might be offensive, but I dropped the thought when I recalled the thread subject and that the inital post had asked for any thoughts.

As to my post #4 above, well I am sorry about that.  Albeit well intended, I mistook your statement about having "no problem with geocentrism" as that you were a die hard geocentrist - my own wishful thinking perhaps implying more to your statement than was intended.  That is what I had meant by "supply you with ammunition" as I had mistakenly thought that our scienctific opinions were closer than they actually are.  That papist website had a lot of material on it, and although I do not blindly agree with every single detail therein, I must be honest and not hide the fact that I rather admire that website.  However, the bearing which it will have on life does not generally incline me to argue about such things. 
That being the case, I suppose we can agree to disagree on things scientific - especially as you say some things are more important. 

As to romance, I had a conversation with my bishop last week about it.  Until a year and a half ago, he was a married priest, and I had had the intention of becoming a monk in Greece.  As it turns out, his wife reposed and he became a monk (in order to become a bishop), and I got married.  Our positions reversed.  I had never been on a search for a wife, but life with this particular one comes much closer to the hesychastic life for which I had visited Greek monasteries in the first place.  I figure they are two different means to the same end.

If God is willing, all things will work out for you yet. 

And definitely avoid Trotsky on that one. 
A pessimistic political schemer in enough trouble to get deported and killed might not offer the most stable dating advice out there.
What I wrote about Trotsky only touches the surface of a much deeper interest in Russia - the essence of which has to do with the Old Orthodox Christians aka Russian Old Believers. 

Although I believe that my synod (Matthewite) is the genuine Church, I recently discovered that the Bela Krinitsa Synod (Russian Old Orthodox) passes every test which I applied to it which means that their hierarchy is genuine!  I contacted one of their priests and explained to him that such a discovery is exciting.  (My own {Greek Orthodox} priest confessor knows about this as well.)  I definitely plan to visit them and relocate some day.  I find that the prayer book published by the (Old Believer) Holy Nativity Church in Erie, PA is far more instructive than the other prayer books avaiable in english.  I visited them two years ago and specifically told their Archpriest Pimen Simon that the english language prayer book which he published is second to none.  I just received their book 'The Son of the Church' which is likewise outstanding.  The Old Believer services in Slavonic with the prostrations seem more natural to me as an english speaker to get involved in than do the Greek services.

Although knowledgeable of Greek, my priest is actually from the Caucasus and also familiar with Russian customs.  He was discussing how everyone did bows before going into Church when he was younger in the Soviet controlled Caucasus - similar to the way I see bows described in Old Believer prayer books.  I asked him about people not doing that at our Greek old calendar Church, and he said Greeks never do those things.

He said that morality has declined to the point that devout minded people in the Soviet era were generally more pious than Greek old calendarists today. 

Note:  Not trying to be offensive. I am in a Greek old calendarist synod which I love and plan to be baptized in.  I just think it is important to be able to note an observaton about a general spiritual condition of our time.  Although he said Greeks, I think this statement applies even more to the world generally.  I should also say that society in Greece today is generally more religious than in Russia.  The kind of Russians of which I was speaking are a distinctly devout minority.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #14 on: March 17, 2013, 03:09:22 PM »

I definitely plan to visit them and relocate some day.
I definitely plan to visit.  Whether I would relocate several years from now is another question.  If that was the case, the motivation is acquiring an environment more suitable to spiritual growth as is the case of one who enters a monastery.  The beautiful thing is that such a move is not an abandonment of my synod since both hierarchies are legitimate. 
Logged
Virtual Paradise
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225



« Reply #15 on: March 17, 2013, 05:30:57 PM »

Quote
The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.[1] The existence and extent of fine-tuning in the Universe is a matter of dispute in the scientific community.[citation needed] The proposition is also discussed among philosophers, theologians, creationists, and intelligent design proponents.

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." He also states that "'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently".[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, such as the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe


What makes our Universe special is the condition in which exists.. The diversity in which exists, and the diversity in which life exists , the forms of life found on Earth, which is quite amazing.. Inteligent and reasonable life, a reasonable way phenomens exist and take place on earth.. like the fauna, flora, changing of seasons, etc. What makes it special is REASON.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2013, 05:32:08 PM by Virtual Paradise » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #16 on: March 17, 2013, 05:32:45 PM »

I realize I was unclear. The issue of Trotksy and Plato did not relate to them directly. They intervened in the more important issue of Romance rather than philosophy.

I really posted about your reply#4 above. I think you need to think about this some more. To me it seems like you are accepting an opinion of others that is almost certainly not true. That is what is disturbing to me.
Yesterday, I briefly wondered if my flat earth posts might be offensive, but I dropped the thought when I recalled the thread subject and that the inital post had asked for any thoughts.

As to my post #4 above, well I am sorry about that.  Albeit well intended, I mistook your statement about having "no problem with geocentrism" as that you were a die hard geocentrist - my own wishful thinking perhaps implying more to your statement than was intended.  That is what I had meant by "supply you with ammunition" as I had mistakenly thought that our scienctific opinions were closer than they actually are.  That papist website had a lot of material on it, and although I do not blindly agree with every single detail therein, I must be honest and not hide the fact that I rather admire that website.  However, the bearing which it will have on life does not generally incline me to argue about such things. 
That being the case, I suppose we can agree to disagree on things scientific - especially as you say some things are more important. 

As to romance, I had a conversation with my bishop last week about it.  Until a year and a half ago, he was a married priest, and I had had the intention of becoming a monk in Greece.  As it turns out, his wife reposed and he became a monk (in order to become a bishop), and I got married.  Our positions reversed.  I had never been on a search for a wife, but life with this particular one comes much closer to the hesychastic life for which I had visited Greek monasteries in the first place.  I figure they are two different means to the same end.

If God is willing, all things will work out for you yet. 

And definitely avoid Trotsky on that one. 
A pessimistic political schemer in enough trouble to get deported and killed might not offer the most stable dating advice out there.
What I wrote about Trotsky only touches the surface of a much deeper interest in Russia - the essence of which has to do with the Old Orthodox Christians aka Russian Old Believers. 

Although I believe that my synod (Matthewite) is the genuine Church, I recently discovered that the Bela Krinitsa Synod (Russian Old Orthodox) passes every test which I applied to it which means that their hierarchy is genuine!  I contacted one of their priests and explained to him that such a discovery is exciting.  (My own {Greek Orthodox} priest confessor knows about this as well.)  I definitely plan to visit them and relocate some day.  I find that the prayer book published by the (Old Believer) Holy Nativity Church in Erie, PA is far more instructive than the other prayer books avaiable in english.  I visited them two years ago and specifically told their Archpriest Pimen Simon that the english language prayer book which he published is second to none.  I just received their book 'The Son of the Church' which is likewise outstanding.  The Old Believer services in Slavonic with the prostrations seem more natural to me as an english speaker to get involved in than do the Greek services.

Although knowledgeable of Greek, my priest is actually from the Caucasus and also familiar with Russian customs.  He was discussing how everyone did bows before going into Church when he was younger in the Soviet controlled Caucasus - similar to the way I see bows described in Old Believer prayer books.  I asked him about people not doing that at our Greek old calendar Church, and he said Greeks never do those things.

He said that morality has declined to the point that devout minded people in the Soviet era were generally more pious than Greek old calendarists today. 

Note:  Not trying to be offensive. I am in a Greek old calendarist synod which I love and plan to be baptized in.  I just think it is important to be able to note an observaton about a general spiritual condition of our time.  Although he said Greeks, I think this statement applies even more to the world generally.  I should also say that society in Greece today is generally more religious than in Russia.  The kind of Russians of which I was speaking are a distinctly devout minority.

You are not offensive at all (at least so far) and I am not offended by a belief in a flat earth. The latter poses a dilemma for me which I sometimes have to express.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #17 on: March 17, 2013, 07:57:14 PM »

You are not offensive at all (at least so far) and I am not offended by a belief in a flat earth. The latter poses a dilemma for me which I sometimes have to express.
I read that people in Cuba do not believe in the moon landings, and I subsequently read that many people in Latin countries do not believe in them. 

Since my wife is a poor Honduran that cooks with wood in a mountain village, does not speak english, and worked as a cleaning lady for the equivalent of US$40 a month before we met, I decided to ask her opinion about it.  She said that she believes the moon landings are a farce and american propaganda.  I asked her if she was saying that because she knows what I believe, and she said everyone in her town believes the same way she does.  Only one or two people hold different opinions similar to what many people in the US believe. 

From this conversation, I concluded that people in the US really do live in an ivory tower.  Noam Chomsky said that the wealthiest 20% of americans are the most propangandized class of society, and Will Rogers wrote that americans know too many things that are not true.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #18 on: March 17, 2013, 08:10:57 PM »

I asked my priest what he thought about this.  He is from Ossetia, and he said that most people in Russia do not believe anyone ever went to the moon, and it is american propaganda.

Neither of he nor my wife believe that the earth is flat having been taught the contrary in school when they were young, but their opinions do seem to give an indication of non-american opinion about alleged moon landings.
Logged
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,240



« Reply #19 on: March 17, 2013, 08:12:33 PM »

Stay off the drugs, Dionysius.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #20 on: March 19, 2013, 04:46:37 PM »

One concept I read all throughout the Scriptures and amongst the writings of the Church Fathers is that the cosmos NEEDS a Creator and that the "uniqueness and majesty" of it--what contemporary folks call "fine-tuning"--proves that the cosmos needs a creator, and that anyone who rejects it is akin to a fool who would reject that a boat needs to a captain to venture on course. The Bible even says that the crafting of the universe bears witness to God, and I know that the Church rejects any teaching on the cosmos which rejects the need for a creator.

But this is something that I--as a posterboy for western logic--have trouble accepting. Not because I reject the Church, but simply because I find it a faulty argument. What is so "fine-tuned" or "unique" about the state of our universe? "Fine-tuned" and "complexity" and all those other adjectives are merely manmade concepts which describe our perception of the universe. They have NO basis in science, nor are they objective like math. They are merely sentiments of our thoughts and feelings--our attempt to apply manmade, relative qualities to an objective, non-manmade object. It doesn't add up to me.

What really makes the state of our cosmos any more special than any of the other countless possibilities? We only see it as special merely because we feel that it is special--we cannot scientifically prove that it is special because concepts like "fine-tuning" are not scientific. Our universe had an equal chance of being different, what makes its present state special at all? It would be like drawing an Ace from a deck of cards and saying that it's special, when in reality, it isn't too special. There was an equal chance you could have picked any of the other cards, and the only reason it seems special to you is because you prescribe this manmade concept of specialness to the "Ace" card. If someone picked a 6 or a Queen, it could just as well be special to him, and you would have no way of proving that the Ace is really anymore special from a philosophical point of view. My view on the universe is somewhat similar; our universe had an equal shot at being different, so it isn't really that impressive that our universe is the way it is right now, and I don't get how it is "fine-tuned." Thus, I don't get how it bears witness to God.

Thoughts?
Since you are interested in the Russian Orthodox Church, then you might want to check out 'Sobornosti' by Matthew Raphael Johnson if you have the opportunity.  It was the best book on Russia which I have read in a while. 

I also recently picked up a copy of 'The Way of a Pilgrim' translated by Olga Savin with an preface by Fr Thomas Hopko, a professor at Saint Vladimir's Theological Seminary.  This edition includes translations of additional material in the appendices which is included in most Russian editions and which has never been translated into english before including specific instructions about breathing, et cetera.

This book is so much better than Bishop Brianchaninov's book on the same subject which does not actually give much information about how to get started on this prayer. 
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 04:54:12 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #21 on: March 19, 2013, 11:56:38 PM »

Stay off the drugs, Dionysius.

Irrespective of how it was intended, I think we will go ahead and take that as a compliment in disguise by someone who does not question modern science to the extent that we do. God bless.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #22 on: April 25, 2013, 12:34:19 PM »

Surely heliocentrism is preferred because it offers a simpler model for explaining celestial movements. Under geocentrism, we have to propose different orbital patterns for the sun, the planets and the stars, without any overarching explanatory mechanism for these different orbits. Under heliocentrism, all the celestial motions can be explained by the action of gravity alone, which predicts what orbit to expect based only on the mass and velocity of the celestial bodies in question. We can then explain all the movements with this single model, whereas under geocentrism we had to stipulate different models for each differently behaving body. It's just Occam's razor, isn't it?
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2013, 01:36:07 PM »

Surely heliocentrism is preferred because it offers a simpler model for explaining celestial movements.
Heliocentrism is vastly more complicated and inaccurate.

No one has ever used heliocentrism to track the stars.  The geocentric system of epicycles used for tracking astronomical movements has been in use for over 2,200 years and is traced through Hipparchus (probably to even more ancient astronomers from whom he learned it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

Hipparchus's system of epicycles was adopted by the second century geocentric Aegyptian astronomer Claudius Ptolemy upon whom late modern technical astronomy is based.  This system continues to be used today to track astronomical movements.  Computers which accurately track stars use the geocentric system - not heliocentrism.  The geocentric system of epicycles was never changed in all these centuries sicne Copernicus and Galileo in spite of all the heliocentric rhetoric since heliocentrism is useless as a means of tracking the stars, sun, and moon.

"In calculating these perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present-day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician
now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier's series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions
."

'Gravitation Versus Relativity' (page 133)
By Charles Lane Poor
http://archive.org/details/gravitationversu00pooruoft

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 01:37:42 PM by Dionysii » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2013, 01:59:54 PM »

You realize Hipparchus knew that the Earth was spherical right? You can't have it both ways.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2013, 02:21:26 PM »

Surely heliocentrism is preferred because it offers a simpler model for explaining celestial movements.
Heliocentrism is vastly more complicated and inaccurate.

No one has ever used heliocentrism to track the stars.  The geocentric system of epicycles used for tracking astronomical movements has been in use for over 2,200 years and is traced through Hipparchus (probably to even more ancient astronomers from whom he learned it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

Hipparchus's system of epicycles was adopted by the second century geocentric Aegyptian astronomer Claudius Ptolemy upon whom late modern technical astronomy is based.  This system continues to be used today to track astronomical movements.  Computers which accurately track stars use the geocentric system - not heliocentrism.  The geocentric system of epicycles was never changed in all these centuries sicne Copernicus and Galileo in spite of all the heliocentric rhetoric since heliocentrism is useless as a means of tracking the stars, sun, and moon.

"In calculating these perturbations, the mathematician is forced to adopt the old device of Hipparchus, the discredited and discarded epicycle. It is true that the name, epicycle, is no longer used, and that one may hunt in vain through astronomical text-books for the slightest hint of the present-day use of this device, which in the popular mind is connected with absurd and fantastic theories. The physicist and the mathematician
now speak of harmonic motion, of Fourier's series, of the development of a function into a series of sines and cosines. The name has been changed, but the essentials of the device remain. And the essential, the fundamental point of the device, under whatever name it may be concealed, is the representation of an irregular motion as the combination of a number of simple, uniform circular motions
."

'Gravitation Versus Relativity' (page 133)
By Charles Lane Poor
http://archive.org/details/gravitationversu00pooruoft



The geocentric model may still be useful when tracking planets and stars from the earth. This is because for tracking purposes, we need the computer to predict the motions only, and despite the greater explanatory power of heliocentrism, it is easier to program the computer to predict planetary movements with a geocentric model, since our vantage point is the earth, not the sun. If we could observe planetary movements from the sun, a heliocentric model would turn out to be the easiest model for predicting those movements.

Science is ultimately about explaining natural events, not merely predicting them. While we can certainly predict all celestial movements with a sufficiently complex geocentric model, we have to stipulate many more mechanisms than under heliocentrism, e.g. the retrograde motion of Mars is merely a brute fact under geocentrism and has no explanation. Under heliocentrism, the apparent retrograde motion can be explained by the relative orbital speeds of Mars and the Earth.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2013, 02:30:59 PM »

Lol, this thread is so bizarre.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2013, 03:32:44 PM »

the retrograde motion of Mars is merely a brute fact under geocentrism and has no explanation
This is rubbish.

Mars rises in the east and sets in the west like every other star in the sky.
  
A few stars such as Venus, Mars, Jupitar and Saturn do not rotate at the same rate at which all the fixed stars rotate.
However, they still revolve around the earth in the same direction.
The rate at which these few stars rotate and their exact future positions can be calcuated using epicycles.

I directly observe with my own eyes that all of these revolve around the earth.  To understand otherwise is error.
I believe my own eyes rather than fables of atheist astronomy.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:37:37 PM by Dionysii » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2013, 03:37:36 PM »

the retrograde motion of Mars is merely a brute fact under geocentrism and has no explanation
This is rubbish.

Mars rises in the east and sets in the west like every other star in the sky.
 
A few stars such as Venus, Mars, Jupitar and Saturn do not rotate at the same rate at which all the fixed stars rotate.
However, they still revolve around the earth in the same direction.
The rate at which these few stars rotate and their exact future positions can be calcuated using epicycles.

I directly observe with my own eyes that all of these revolve around the earth.  To understand otherwise is error.

We've sent instruments to Mars and observed it rotating around the Sun.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:37:41 PM by sheenj » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2013, 03:39:15 PM »

We've sent instruments to Mars and observed it rotating around the Sun.
I do not believe it.

To believe this story indicates an inability to distinguish truth from falsehood.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:54:30 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2013, 03:46:08 PM »

the retrograde motion of Mars is merely a brute fact under geocentrism and has no explanation
This is rubbish.

Mars rises in the east and sets in the west like every other star in the sky.
  
A few stars such as Venus, Mars, Jupitar and Saturn do not rotate at the same rate at which all the fixed stars rotate.
However, they still revolve around the earth in the same direction.
The rate at which these few stars rotate and their exact future positions can be calcuated using epicycles.

I directly observe with my own eyes that all of these revolve around the earth.  To understand otherwise is error.

You admit that Mars and the planets don't revolve at the same rate, and yet you refuse to accept the simplest explanation for this. The only way the geocentric model can account for the movement of Mars is to posit that Mars revolves on an epicycle, i.e. a smaller orbit relative to the deferent, i.e. the main orbit. The epicycle itself is unexplained. We do have an explanation, however, if we suppose Mars and the Earth are revolving around the Sun at different speeds and distances from the Sun. Each planet now only has one orbit, a far simpler model and one easily explained by gravity.

Heliocentrism accounts for what you can see with your own eyes just as much as geocentrism, AND it has more explanatory power. To disagree only shows irrationality.

Interestingly, Ptolemaic astronomy was not truly geocentric. The center of the universe, i.e. the deferents or main orbits of the planets, was not the earth, but a point between the earth and another point called the equant.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 03:47:09 PM by Jonathan Gress » Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #31 on: April 25, 2013, 04:24:43 PM »

I don't think the argument of "majesty" and "awe" is related to fine-tuning at all.

I actually disagree with the concept of fine-tuning because the Christian worldview is that the world is *broken* after the fall. If we look at the dynamics of order and entropy, we see that order arises for some time, can't really keep up for long in cosmological proportions and entropy prevails. It's really like a good thing that can never live up to its potential. The promise of the Second Coming is precisely that the Universe will be healed to its first intended state where there is no death - no entropy. Ordered systems will not destroy each other, life will be eternal.

Anyway, back to the argument of "awe", it seems to me that its related to aesthetic appreciation. We can easily understand why something man-made is beautiful. It was made to be that way. So, how come there is beauty even in what is not man-made? Even in this "broken" universe, we still can look at the sky and go "Wow!"?

The objection one may rise is that "beautiful" is just an opinion. That is the prevailing attitude of this age. The objectivity of beauty is a long discussion which demands that we distinguish the desired from the desirable, our tastes from what is truly beautiful. It demands something that is anathema for our time and age: to admit that "I want" or "I like" is not a legitimating value for anything. That what "I love" most often is outright grotesque and unworthy of our devotion and energy, which must be redirected to what is truly beautiful. It demands that we accept we are not the masters of our hearts and of our destinies, that obedience to truth as true beauty will set us free and our submission to our own inclinations will make us slaves. The problem is not really about having someone shaping our tastes. Even those who love the grotesque, love letting others shape them even more to a form where the grotesque will be ever more loved. It really means accepting what St. Paul said: "All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient". Which includes our aesthetic tastes.

A very interesting article about beauty states:
Quote
The general understanding of the term ‘higher education’ is that it basically means the training for the well-paid professions.
However, if we are to understand by the name of ‘higher education’ the overcoming of the intellectual limitations of the environment, the access to a universal perspective of things, and the realisation of the highest spiritual qualities a human being possesses, then we will find that many candidates have a personal impairment that, sooner or later, will end up excluding them and assuring that ‘higher education’ – in the strong and not in the administrative sense – continues to be, by their own right, a privilege of few.

This impairment, thanks be to God, is not of economic, social, ethnic or biological order.
The Greeks called it apeirokalia. It means simply ‘the lack of experience of the most beautiful things’. By this term it was understood that the individual who, in certain stages of his development, had been deprived of certain interior experiences that woke on him the desire for beauty, goodness, and truth, would never be able to understand the conversations of the sages, no matter how much effort he put in learning Sciences, Letters and Rhetoric.

Aristotle, in a more technical language, would say that rites are not intended for the transmission of specific teachings to men, but to cause on their soul a deep impression. Anyone who is aware of the importance Aristotle gives to the imaginative impressions will understand the extreme seriousness of what he means: these impressions performed upon the soul an illuminating and structuring impact. In their absence, intelligence obscurely drifts about the multitude of sensible data, without grasping the symbolic nexus which, bridging the gap between abstractions and reality, prevents our reasoning from dissolving into a maddening combinatory of empty syllogisms – the pedant expressions of the impotence to know.

Of course, the inner experiences which Aristotle refers to are not exclusively granted by ‘rites’ in the strict and technical understanding of the term. Theatre and poetry also can open souls to an inflow of the above. To music – to certain music – we cannot deny the power to generate a similar effect. The simple contemplation of nature, a providential happening, or, for more sensitive souls, even certain states of loving rapture, when associated with a strong moral appeal (remember Raskolnikov, before Sonia, in Crime and Punishment), can put the soul in a certain state of bliss that frees it from the cave and from apeirokalia.
http://www.olavodecarvalho.org/traducoes/apeiroeng.htm
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #32 on: April 25, 2013, 04:32:41 PM »

Why Beauty Matters
http://vimeo.com/55521493

When the Fathers spoke of glory, uniqueness, majesty and similar concepts they probably had in mind concepts of beauty. The documentary above remembers  us what the word meant and what we lost.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 04:35:53 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #33 on: April 25, 2013, 04:56:25 PM »

Heliocentrism accounts for ...

Retrogradation of Planets
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za57.htm

Heliocentrism is a lie.  That is enough for me to know.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #34 on: April 25, 2013, 05:25:59 PM »

Why Beauty Matters
http://vimeo.com/55521493

When the Fathers spoke of glory, uniqueness, majesty and similar concepts they probably had in mind concepts of beauty. The documentary above remembers  us what the word meant and what we lost.

Good video.  It asserted that beauty stopped being important in the twentieth century. 
I have long believed that to be the case, but I discovered a deeper background to the trend when I read The Theology of the Icon by Fr. Leonid Ouspensky which traced degeneracy in Eastern Orthodox art to the seventeenth century. 
http://www.christianbook.com/theology-of-the-icon-2-volumes/leonid-ouspensky/9780881411249/pd/11249
This trend and its equal in the Latin west is the origin of modern art. 
http://www.amazon.com/The-Total-Art-Stalinism-Dictatorship/dp/1844677079/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y

It is not a coincidence that this revolution against Christian beauty in seventeenth century Orthodox Russia occurred during the same century as Galileo and Newton who conducted a revolution against the knowledge of God in nature.

Helocentrism is a manifestation of ugliness and alienation from God comparable to modern art.
Logged
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #35 on: April 25, 2013, 05:35:13 PM »

I honestly fail to see what is ugly about heliocentrism. To me what's beautiful is the harmony and order of physics that we continue to discover. This order wouldn't be there without something Divine behind it: atheists have to suppose that order just exists, without any explanation. But whether that order is geocentric or heliocentric hardly matters: the point is that it is well-ordered. We know it is well-ordered because we can discover it through our reason. If the universe were pure chaos there would be nothing for us to discover.

I guess there's no accounting for taste.
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,363


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #36 on: April 25, 2013, 05:46:18 PM »

For what it’s worth, the photographs of Felix Baumgartner’s recent high altitude dive which depicted a curved earth horizon in the background were faked by having been run through a fish lens to obtain the curvature.

Here is the official photograph which depicts a curved earth in the background after it had been run through a fish lens to make it appear curved:


Here is the same photograph as it actually appeared originally:



If you take a ruler and go from point to point across the horizon on the second photo, there is still a curvature present showing that the earth is a sphere, not a perfect one, but nevertheless the earth has a spherical shape.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #37 on: April 25, 2013, 06:06:35 PM »

What on earth is going on?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #38 on: April 25, 2013, 06:26:44 PM »

What on earth is going on?

Something about the earth being flat, fake moon landings, and Dionysii's poor Honduran wife that cooks with wood in a mountain village. Huh

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around those very confusing things.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 06:31:44 PM by NightOwl » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #39 on: April 25, 2013, 06:32:48 PM »

If you take a ruler and go from point to point across the horizon on the second photo, there is still a curvature present showing that the earth is a sphere, not a perfect one, but nevertheless the earth has a spherical shape.

Further observation of curvature in the earth - curved in an upwards direction forming a concave bowl or the inside of sphere.  
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm

Can these subjective observations be depended upon?
If the earth had a 25,000 mile circumference, then Gibraltar would not be visible from Morocco.  It would be mathematically impossible.
If the earth was a globe with such a circumference, then it would be impossible to see Italy from Sicily because of the curvature.

Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #40 on: April 25, 2013, 06:45:39 PM »

The orbit of the stars around the pole over a period of several hours froma time exposed camera:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm
http://rocketroberts.com/astro/circum.htm

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 06:49:26 PM by Dionysii » Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #41 on: April 25, 2013, 06:51:00 PM »

If you take a ruler and go from point to point across the horizon on the second photo, there is still a curvature present showing that the earth is a sphere, not a perfect one, but nevertheless the earth has a spherical shape.

Further observation of curvature in the earth - curved in an upwards direction forming a concave bowl or the inside of sphere.  
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za15.htm

Can these subjective observations be depended upon?
If the earth had a 25,000 mile circumference, then Gibraltar would not be visible from Morocco.  It would be mathematically impossible.


Saying "mathematically impossible" is not a proof or a substitute for one... you're just continuing to post strings of words that make no sense.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 06:58:01 PM by NightOwl » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #42 on: April 25, 2013, 07:57:15 PM »


If the earth had a 25,000 mile circumference, then Gibraltar would not be visible from Morocco.  It would be mathematically impossible.
If the earth was a globe with such a circumference, then it would be impossible to see Italy from Sicily because of the curvature.

In a vacuum. The atmosphere acts like  (or more correctly is) a prism. During a sunset, the bottom part of the sun that we see is actually below the horizon.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #43 on: April 25, 2013, 08:02:53 PM »

Here is a photograph of the French coast seen across the English channel from Dover:

http://www.beautifulengland.net/photos/main.php/kent/dover/frenchcoastandeasterndocksdoverharbourdover.html

The strait of Dover is the narrowest part of the English channel at 6 kilometres or 3.75 miles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Dover

If the earth was a globe with a circumference of 24901 miles or a radius of about 3965 miles, then the corresponding curvature over 3.75 mile would obscure almost ten feet of the French coast. 

Distance    Height
 Miles          Feet
--------------------------
  1.0         0.67
  1.23       1.0
  3.0         5.95
  3.9       10.00
  6.0       23.8
  10        66.00
  12.3    100
  20       264
  30       595
  39     1000
  40     1060
  50     1650
  60     2380
  70     3240
  87     5000
100     6610
110     8000
120     9520
123   10000
129   11000
135   12000
140   13000
146   14000
148   14496   
 
Visual Line of Sight Calculations dependent on Earth's Curvature
by David Senesac
http://www.davidsenesac.com/Information/line_of_sight.html

A photograph of Dover, England taken from the French coast at sea level:
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #44 on: April 25, 2013, 09:00:21 PM »

You can't determine the height the observer is standing on from those pictures. However, they are obviously not taken from sea level. Also, you have to take into account the height of the person taking the picture as well.

Just by looking at the table you've given, someone looking from 10 feet above sea level (say they're 6 ft high and standing 4 feet above the sea level) can see 3.9 miles out to sea, which is well within the bounds given here.

If you want to get a little more technical, the rough formula to find the distance to the horizon is d ~ 3.57 * sqrt(h), where d is the distance in kilometers and h is the height of the observation in meters.
[source]

So assuming a 1.75 m tall observer standing 2m above sea level, that gives us a distance to the horizon of d ~ 3.57 * sqrt(3.75)

Simplify to d ~ 3.57*1.936 ~ 6.9 km.

This isn't even taking into account the refractive properties of the atmosphere, which can allow you to see below the horizon.
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #45 on: April 25, 2013, 09:13:15 PM »

The orbit of the stars around the pole over a period of several hours froma time exposed camera:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm
http://rocketroberts.com/astro/circum.htm



Congratulations, you've proven that the Earth is round and rotates around the North-South Pole axis.

The center of the circle of stars always points to one of the two poles. Look at the pictures he took facing North-east and East, the circles are still centered around Polaris facing North.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #46 on: April 25, 2013, 09:38:52 PM »

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #47 on: April 25, 2013, 09:40:25 PM »

"A single reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool."

- Proverbs 17:10
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 09:40:42 PM by Dionysii » Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #48 on: April 25, 2013, 09:42:43 PM »

Let me ask you something, why are all those circles centered around one of the poles? If the World was flat, wouldn't the circles be oriented directly overhead?
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 09:45:49 PM by sheenj » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2013, 10:17:43 PM »

Let me ask you something, why are all those circles centered around one of the poles? If the World was flat, wouldn't the circles be oriented directly overhead?

I feel like I've thrown pearls to swine.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #50 on: April 25, 2013, 10:23:14 PM »

What on earth is going on?

They were serving "crazy" down at the "from the Old Country" Buffet tonite?
Logged
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #51 on: April 25, 2013, 10:27:15 PM »

Let me ask you something, why are all those circles centered around one of the poles? If the World was flat, wouldn't the circles be oriented directly overhead?

I feel like I've thrown pearls to swine.

It's just a question...
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #52 on: April 26, 2013, 02:53:40 AM »

An intriguing fact about Apollo is its apparent association with the outspoken Nazi Charles Lindbergh who had worked for Air Force generals Chiefs of Staff ever since his Nazi friends had lost World War II.  Lindbergh began an active interest in the Apollo program at least as early as 1968 when he became peronally involved with the Apollo crew members.  Since Lindbergh became friends with astronaut Michael Collins and was involved in Collins' autobiography for which he authored the foreward, Lindbergh perhaps used his friendship with Apollo crew members to prevent incovenient facts from becoming public.  Lindbergh's involvement with NASA's is not surprising considering that NASA was founded by Nazi Werner von Braun.

NASA founder Werner von Braun with Himmler


Aviator Charles Lindbergh receives Nazi Medal from Field Marshall Goering


A little known fact about Charles Lindbergh is that he was already present at the site of the famous Roswell UFO incident of 7 July 1947.
I believe this incident to have been a hoax, and Lindbergh's presence as testified to by a contemporary newspaper is noteworthy.

Affidavit of Earl Zimmerman about Charles Lindbergh at Roswell
http://www.roswellproof.com/zimmerman.html

The Roswell incident was evidently a litmus test of public reaction engineered by the military who had other deceptions such as space travel in mind.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 03:00:21 AM by Dionysii » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #53 on: April 26, 2013, 08:29:27 AM »

The orbit of the stars around the pole over a period of several hours froma time exposed camera:
http://www.fixedearth.com/Size_and_Structure%20Part%20IV.htm
http://rocketroberts.com/astro/circum.htm



Congratulations, you've proven that the Earth is round and rotates around the North-South Pole axis.

The center of the circle of stars always points to one of the two poles. Look at the pictures he took facing North-east and East, the circles are still centered around Polaris facing North.
Come to think of it, isn't it a problem for a flat earth to have two different sets of constellations in the two hemispheres?  And for that matter, the fact that we are entering Spiring, while Australia is entering Fall, something that can be verified by a single long distance plane ride of all of a day?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #54 on: April 26, 2013, 08:42:57 AM »

I can witness it's Fall here in the South and the Southern Cross still shows up in the skies at night. Smiley
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #55 on: April 26, 2013, 11:05:05 AM »

"Faith and Science", a lecture by His Grace, Bishop Gregory of the ACROD, presented at St. Mary's Orthodox Church, Morgantown, WVA on March 2, 2013 at the Orthodox Christian Fellowship retreat held at West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia. His Grace is a published biologist, having spent twenty years in cardiac/biologica research in North Carolina, prior to entering Holy Cross Seminary.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj4sIpQDmGE
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #56 on: April 26, 2013, 11:18:57 AM »

Come to think of it, isn't it a problem for a flat earth to have two different sets of constellations in the two hemispheres?
No.  Different stars pass over Argentina than passover Norway, but so what?

There is no southern pole star.
Perhaps you will claim that a faint star named Sigma Octantis forms some kind of an axis with the North Star.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the case.
It is still the stars themselves which rotate - not the earth which is motionless.  

EDIT: The classification of stars into two sets and the world into two hemispheres is an artificial classification.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 11:38:20 AM by Dionysii » Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #57 on: April 26, 2013, 11:32:11 AM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #58 on: April 26, 2013, 11:33:19 AM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?

From the Flat Earth Society's wiki:



That white ring around the edge is Antarctica, which they say is not a continent to the South but a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth.

"Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond."
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 11:34:45 AM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #59 on: April 26, 2013, 11:41:24 AM »

The configuration of that map seems to be based on a world map drawn circa 1703 by Heinrich Scherer.
It does depict the entire known world on a flat surface, but it is devoid of some characteristics inherent in early Christian geography.
Logged
NightOwl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 596



« Reply #60 on: April 26, 2013, 11:42:04 AM »

Sounds like a good setting for a science fiction novel... what about the other side? And isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #61 on: April 26, 2013, 11:50:08 AM »

Sounds like a good setting for a science fiction novel... what about the other side? And isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?

Well, we round-earthers know that Australia couldn't even exist because the people would just fall off.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #62 on: April 26, 2013, 11:50:31 AM »

The configuration of that map seems to be based on a world map drawn circa 1703 by Heinrich Scherer.
It does depict the entire known world on a flat surface, but it is devoid of some characteristics inherent in early Christian geography.


Just to blow my mind, is there any chance you hold to a strict scriptural interpretation of cosmology, but believe in some sort of "evolution". I am not looking to derail the thread or argue, I am just wondering.

Thank you for your thorough replies. I can't imagine what it must be like to exist in a world where nearly everything everyone else thinks about the general make up of the cosmos is at odds with your own.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2013, 11:52:08 AM »

Oh Dionysii,

Did you say you served in the US military on a sub (probably better to be in it I guess)?
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2013, 11:54:36 AM »

Perhaps the UN will usher sanity back into the world:

Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #65 on: April 26, 2013, 11:54:42 AM »

isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?

I agree.  Both the Scherer model and the maps of Cosmas and the ones which Iamisry posted are models.
These are models aiming to give some impression of the entire forest and not the details of the trees, so to speak.
  
Neither do perfectly spherical globes portray the globular world which in which many believe which is slightly flattened at the poles according to the current trend.

Likewise, atomic structure is a model formulated by Lord Ernest Rutherford in order to understand chemical/nuclear reactions.
It would be a mistake to assume that atoms actually exist.

The Case Against the Nuclear Atom
By Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 12:03:41 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2013, 12:00:22 PM »

Oh Dionysii,

Did you say you served in the US military on a sub (probably better to be in it I guess)?

I am not an evolutionist by any stretch.
The book 'In the Minds of Men' by Ian Taylor summarizes my attitude towards biological evolution and geological uniformitarianism.
I believe in creation, and I am a catastrophist with regard to geology.  In other words, I believe the flood of Noah covered the entire world.
http://www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/

Yes, I was a submarine yeoman (secretary).  
My other duties during that time included helmsman underway and lookout while surfaced.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 12:02:43 PM by Dionysii » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #67 on: April 26, 2013, 12:01:28 PM »

Neither do perfectly spherical globes portray the globular world which in which many believe which is slightly flattened at the poles according to the current trend.

I remember one of the first fun words I learned in school in about third grade, oblate ellipsoid. We were discussing the shape of the earth.

I think oblate spheroid is more precise, I dunno.

Endoplasmic reticulum soon followed.

Both of these words raised the game of horse to a whole new level.
Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #68 on: April 26, 2013, 12:04:12 PM »

Yes, I was a submarine yeoman (secretary).  
My other duties during that time included helmsman underway and lookout while surfaced.

I took only small "trip" in a sub once. I was a kid and even then I couldn't imagine living in such quarters. Knew a guy who was a mechanic on subs for his entire life. Fascinating stories he had to tell.

In any case, thanks for your service to the country.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 12:04:34 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #69 on: April 26, 2013, 12:11:39 PM »

I took a tour of a Russian submarine which was briefly in Seattle.
I also visited a Turkish sub in Istanbul which is now a permanent exihibit on the Golden Horne.

A Turkish submarine Chief who had been in the Cyprus wars gave the tour.
I'd love to go back there.  Constantinople is second to none for a honeymoon, and I've become a bit of a Turkophile.
Logged
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,299



« Reply #70 on: April 26, 2013, 12:17:33 PM »

Sounds like a good setting for a science fiction novel... what about the other side? And isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?

Well, we round-earthers know that Australia couldn't even exist because the people would just fall off.

Here, here. This so-called "law of gravity" is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on humanity.
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #71 on: April 26, 2013, 12:20:13 PM »

  Constantinople is second to none for a honeymoon,

Unfortunately when my wife and I went for our honeymoon, it was in the middle of a heat wave. It was ridiculously hot (100+ degrees fahrenheit) and humid every day. We kept saying, "This would be awesome if we weren't bathing in our own sweat." We still had good times though.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #72 on: April 26, 2013, 12:37:43 PM »

  Constantinople is second to none for a honeymoon,

Unfortunately when my wife and I went for our honeymoon, it was in the middle of a heat wave. It was ridiculously hot (100+ degrees fahrenheit) and humid every day. We kept saying, "This would be awesome if we weren't bathing in our own sweat." We still had good times though.
We'll try to go in the winter.
Did you take a ferry out to the Princes' Islands?  I spent a day on the Greek one including a visit to the monastery there.
There is a powerful telescope in the bar on the top floor of the tall hotel in Galata from which you can see all the way out to Princes' Islands as well as an awesome view of the Hagia Sophia.  A Turkish carpet store across from the hotel in Sultanamet had an extensive underground consisting of several rooms of Justinian's palace. Lot of underground stuff there.

I was able to afford a side trip to Trabizond and Soumela monastery on the Black Sea coast.
God willing, we'll to take a side trip to Cappadocia the next time.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #73 on: April 26, 2013, 01:12:32 PM »

Sounds like a good setting for a science fiction novel... what about the other side? And isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?
How do they deal with how shadows form differently at different locations, but at the same time?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Jonathan Gress
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOC/HOTCA
Posts: 2,632


« Reply #74 on: April 26, 2013, 01:24:56 PM »

An intriguing fact about Apollo is its apparent association with the outspoken Nazi Charles Lindbergh who had worked for Air Force generals Chiefs of Staff ever since his Nazi friends had lost World War II.  Lindbergh began an active interest in the Apollo program at least as early as 1968 when he became peronally involved with the Apollo crew members.  Since Lindbergh became friends with astronaut Michael Collins and was involved in Collins' autobiography for which he authored the foreward, Lindbergh perhaps used his friendship with Apollo crew members to prevent incovenient facts from becoming public.  Lindbergh's involvement with NASA's is not surprising considering that NASA was founded by Nazi Werner von Braun.

NASA founder Werner von Braun with Himmler


Aviator Charles Lindbergh receives Nazi Medal from Field Marshall Goering


A little known fact about Charles Lindbergh is that he was already present at the site of the famous Roswell UFO incident of 7 July 1947.
I believe this incident to have been a hoax, and Lindbergh's presence as testified to by a contemporary newspaper is noteworthy.

Affidavit of Earl Zimmerman about Charles Lindbergh at Roswell
http://www.roswellproof.com/zimmerman.html

The Roswell incident was evidently a litmus test of public reaction engineered by the military who had other deceptions such as space travel in mind.

We should believe in a flat earth because the Apollo program was founded by Nazis. This has to be the most entertaining application of Godwin's Law.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #75 on: April 26, 2013, 01:40:59 PM »

Best. Thread. Ever.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #76 on: April 26, 2013, 01:48:31 PM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?

From the Flat Earth Society's wiki:



That white ring around the edge is Antarctica, which they say is not a continent to the South but a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth.

"Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond."
Isn't it a little problematic that you can go around Antarctica far faster than this "map" would suggest?  Far faster than it would take to go across the Pacific, which is smaller here.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,834


"My god is greater."


« Reply #77 on: April 26, 2013, 01:54:29 PM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?

From the Flat Earth Society's wiki:



That white ring around the edge is Antarctica, which they say is not a continent to the South but a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth.

"Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond."
Isn't it a little problematic that you can go around Antarctica far faster than this "map" would suggest?  Far faster than it would take to go across the Pacific, which is smaller here.

I don't know what you're talking about. Last time people tried to plumb the secrets of the vast Antarctic waste, it didn't go so well.

Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 26, 2013, 02:00:26 PM »

Best. Thread. Ever.

Yeah.

Sounds like a good setting for a science fiction novel... what about the other side?



isn't it problematic that SE Asia and Australia are completely morphed?

I agree.  Both the Scherer model and the maps of Cosmas and the ones which Iamisry posted are models.
These are models aiming to give some impression of the entire forest and not the details of the trees, so to speak.

You say the Earth is flat. So how can one fail to properly show flat Earth on flat map?

Quote
Neither do perfectly spherical globes portray the globular world which in which many believe which is slightly flattened at the poles according to the current trend.

Lognest radius is 3‰ longer than the shortest one (of course you don't believe in them). The difference is hardly noticeable on such small scales.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 02:01:39 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #79 on: April 26, 2013, 02:00:42 PM »

Come to think of it, isn't it a problem for a flat earth to have two different sets of constellations in the two hemispheres?
No.  Different stars pass over Argentina than passover Norway, but so what?

There is no southern pole star.
Perhaps you will claim that a faint star named Sigma Octantis forms some kind of an axis with the North Star.
Let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is the case.
It is still the stars themselves which rotate - not the earth which is motionless.  

EDIT: The classification of stars into two sets and the world into two hemispheres is an artificial classification.

Yes and no.  Out in space, it doesn't exist.  But here on earth.

Btw, those different stars give you a different picture than that you produced:


Who is on top and down under, of course, is an artificial determination

btw, if the Ancient Egyptians survived and wrote the maps instead of the heirs of the Greeks, this what it would look like: all Egyptian maps have the south (the source of the Nile) on top.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #80 on: April 26, 2013, 02:02:47 PM »

Who is on top and down under, of course, is an artificial determination

btw, if the Ancient Egyptians survived and wrote the maps instead of the heirs of the Greeks, this what it would look like: all Egyptian maps have the south (the source of the Nile) on top.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 02:05:36 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #81 on: April 26, 2013, 02:07:13 PM »

flat and round do not exist, they are mental constructs.  The true shape of the cosmos is a tesseract.

Stars are also figments of our imagination.  Either that or small tears in the floor of heaven letting light through.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #82 on: April 26, 2013, 02:11:42 PM »

flat and round do not exist, they are mental constructs. 

Nāmarūpa... So the Buddha told us.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #83 on: April 26, 2013, 02:12:14 PM »

I don't know what you're talking about. Last time people tried to plumb the secrets of the vast Antarctic waste, it didn't go so well.


It's that where they got that intelligent carrot?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,945


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #84 on: April 26, 2013, 02:30:28 PM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?



What is it that keeps the water from the oceans from going over the edges?  (Reminds me of some graffiti I once saw in a bar in Eugene, Oregon--"There is no gravity-the earth sucks.") Cool
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 26, 2013, 02:33:52 PM »

Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #86 on: April 26, 2013, 02:44:16 PM »

If the Earth were flat shouldn't powerful telescopes pointed at the horizon be able to show places that are impossible to see under round-earth?
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Shiny
Site Supporter
Banned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #87 on: April 26, 2013, 02:52:21 PM »

The earth will be flat after the resurrection of the dead.

It will take precisely 33 years to accomplish this feat; which is the length of time to undue 6 days worth of creation.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #88 on: April 26, 2013, 02:57:49 PM »

Where the Ganges comes from
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #89 on: April 26, 2013, 03:09:29 PM »

Where the Ganges comes from

It actually issues from a cave in the Himalayas called Gomukh.  I have been there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gomukh


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXZ64fV1iAE

Cosmas Indicopleustes writes that the four rivers of the Garden of Eden flow westward underground and resurface in the habitable parts of the world.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #90 on: April 26, 2013, 03:13:55 PM »

Cosmas Indicopleustes writes that the four rivers of the Garden of Eden flow westward underground and resurface in the habitable parts of the world.


How do you think he learned that? Revelation?
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #91 on: April 26, 2013, 03:15:14 PM »

How do you think he learned that? Revelation?
Tradition.  He was not the first to hold that view.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #92 on: April 26, 2013, 03:23:04 PM »

How do you think he learned that? Revelation?
Tradition.  He was not the first to hold that view.

Aha! But as an experienced traveler he must have known that the Nile and the Ganges, the Tiger and the Euphrates were too far apart to have a common source in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10), so - in order to avoid cognitive dissonance - he had to come up with that "traditional" explanation. For you his opinion apparently still holds water...  

Btw - wasn't Eden supposed to be west of India? Or was it somewhere in the Extreme Orient?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 03:35:36 PM by Romaios » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #93 on: April 26, 2013, 03:47:33 PM »

Aha! But as an experienced traveler he must have known that the Nile and the Ganges, the Tiger and the Euphrates were too far apart to have a common source in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10)

Or was it somewhere in the Extreme Orient?
You need to do a little bit of research and get a few facts straight before you just post anything.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #94 on: April 26, 2013, 03:54:12 PM »

You need to do a little bit of research and get a few facts straight before you just post anything.

Reminds me of this.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 03:58:32 PM by Romaios » Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #95 on: April 26, 2013, 03:56:53 PM »

Aha! But as an experienced traveler he must have known that the Nile and the Ganges, the Tiger and the Euphrates were too far apart to have a common source in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10)

Or was it somewhere in the Extreme Orient?
You need to do a little bit of research and get a few facts straight before you just post anything.

...says the guy who believes the earth is flat.  Grin
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 26, 2013, 04:12:06 PM »

A Church Father on the flat earth theory and Cosmas Indicopleustes:

"Read the book entitled the Book of Christians [i.e. Christian Topography], an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus, It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are : that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the lattera rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind."

-- St. Photius the Great, Bibliotheca 36
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:13:38 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #97 on: April 26, 2013, 04:15:32 PM »

How do you think he learned that? Revelation?
Tradition.  He was not the first to hold that view.

Aha! But as an experienced traveler he must have known that the Nile and the Ganges, the Tiger and the Euphrates were too far apart to have a common source in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10), so - in order to avoid cognitive dissonance - he had to come up with that "traditional" explanation. For you his opinion apparently still holds water...  

Btw - wasn't Eden supposed to be west of India? Or was it somewhere in the Extreme Orient?

There is plenty of information about Cosmas Indicopleustes online.
He believed the Garden of Eden was in the "Extreme Orient" as can be seen in this map:

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:16:29 PM by Dionysii » Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #98 on: April 26, 2013, 04:19:42 PM »

This thread makes the Gish Gallop look like a slow trot.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:19:56 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #99 on: April 26, 2013, 04:26:45 PM »

A Church Father on the flat earth theory and Cosmas Indicopleustes:

"Read the book entitled the Book of Christians [i.e. Christian Topography], an interpretation of the Octateuch. The author, who flourished in the reign of Justin, dedicates the work to a certain Pamphilus, It begins with the defence of certain ecclesiastical dogmas by evidence drawn from the Scriptures. The style is poor, and the arrangement hardly up to the ordinary standard. He relates much that is incredible from an historical point of view, so that he may fairly be regarded as a fabulist rather than a trustworthy authority. The views on which he lays special stress are : that neither the sky nor the earth is spherical, but that the former is a kind of vault, and the lattera rectangular plane, [twice as long as broad], to the ends of which the ends of the sky are united; that all the stars, with the help of the angels, are kept in motion; and other things of the same kind."

-- St. Photius the Great, Bibliotheca 36

Some Church Fathers abandoned the flat earth view of the earlier Fathers during the eighth and ninth centuries.
Saint Photios is likely the most outspoken of these, but Saint Bede of England held a globular.

Saint John of Damscus was not so outspoken, but there are a couple of astronomical statements in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith that indicate an acceptance of contemporary views that are not to be found in Saint Basil's Hexameron or Cosmas's Christian Topography.

Of course, the theology of all of these Church Fathers was identical.  I am only speaking of degrees of difference in their views of the physical sciences.
Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #100 on: April 26, 2013, 04:30:39 PM »

Even if St. Basil would have believed that the earth is flat you would still have to admit that there is no Patristic consensus on this issue.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:32:43 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #101 on: April 26, 2013, 04:34:35 PM »

Some Church Fathers abandoned the flat earth view of the earlier Fathers during the eighth and ninth centuries.
The Ummayads revived the old pagan Greek along with their globular theories and other errors which even included Judaic occult sciences in many instances (see Hagarism by Patricia Crone).  The influence of Islamic science can be seen in Saint Bede's statements about the shape of the earth and in Saint Photios's views about Cosmas Indicopleustes.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #102 on: April 26, 2013, 04:35:21 PM »

How do you think he learned that? Revelation?
Tradition.  He was not the first to hold that view.

Aha! But as an experienced traveler he must have known that the Nile and the Ganges, the Tiger and the Euphrates were too far apart to have a common source in the Garden of Eden (cf. Genesis 2:10), so - in order to avoid cognitive dissonance - he had to come up with that "traditional" explanation. For you his opinion apparently still holds water...  

Btw - wasn't Eden supposed to be west of India? Or was it somewhere in the Extreme Orient?

There is plenty of information about Cosmas Indicopleustes online.
He believed the Garden of Eden was in the "Extreme Orient" as can be seen in this map:

Ok, so you believe that Cosmas is the ultimate source on geography, ancient or otherwise. Therefore, the four great rivers  mentioned in Genesis spring from the more-or-less Extreme Orient (Indochina perhaps?) and flow westwards, popping up in India, Mesopotamia and Africa.

Do you suppose other mighty rivers flow underground for thousands of miles and pop out on different continents? If so, the Amazon may have its source in Europe, while the Danube could spring from Australia. Who would dare argue with such a theory?  
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #103 on: April 26, 2013, 04:36:03 PM »

Even if St. Basil would have believed that the earth is flat you would still have to admit that there is no Patristic consensus on this issue.
In the time of Saint Constantine the Great, there was indeed such a consensus.

I would think that the logical method of discerning the Patristic consensus advocated by Saint Vincent of Lerins is just as applicable to science as to Theology.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:50:11 PM by Dionysii » Logged
Cyrillic
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Moscow
Posts: 7,955


The Reactionary Rebel


WWW
« Reply #104 on: April 26, 2013, 04:38:57 PM »

Even if St. Basil would have believed that the earth is flat you would still have to admit that there is no Patristic consensus on this issue.
In the time of Saint Constantine the Great, there was indeed such a consensus.

So the 4th century AD is the golden standard to which every following and preceding era must must conform, somewhat in the same way that the liturgical practices of 15th century Russia are the golden standard of liturgical practices? Interesting theory...
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:41:13 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

Odi profanum vulgus et arceo

"J'ai pour les institutions démocratiques un goût de tête, mais je suis aristocrate par instinct"
-A. de Tocqueville

'Don't bother arguing with Cyrillic, he is Dutch or something queer like that.'
-Byron
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,945


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #105 on: April 26, 2013, 04:39:46 PM »

I think I'm going to re-read "Through The Looking Glass" and "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" again now.  angel
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #106 on: April 26, 2013, 04:42:22 PM »

Ok, so you believe that Cosmas is the ultimate source on geography, ancient or otherwise. Therefore, the four great rivers  mentioned in Genesis spring from the more-or-less Extreme Orient (Indochina perhaps?) and flow westwards, popping up in India, Mesopotamia and Africa.

Do you suppose other mighty rivers flow underground for thousands of miles and pop out on different continents? If so, the Amazon may have its source in Europe, while the Danube could spring from Australia. Who would dare argue with such a theory?
Why is it that I see order and beauty where you see confusion and evil?
You slander what you do not understand and make it out to be complicated and convoluted.  

As I see it, four major river heads flow westward from the far east.
If distributaries of these rivers were the origins of many mountain springs, it goes a long way to making sense out of underground aquifers.

I take the bible as an authority on science.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #107 on: April 26, 2013, 04:46:14 PM »

So the 4th century AD is the golden standard to which every following and preceding era must must conform, somewhat in the same way that the liturgical practices of 15th century Russia are the golden standard of liturgical practices? Interesting theory...
I have found the views of Cosmas Indicopleustes and Saint Jerome on the cosmos to be truthful.

If you believe otherwise, then that's cool.  Smiley
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #108 on: April 26, 2013, 04:52:01 PM »

Why is it that I see order and beauty where you see confusion and evil?

Is the Nile more orderly and beautiful if it springs in Cosmas' Orient rather than in Africa?

You slander what you do not understand and make it out to be complicated and convoluted. 

Cosmas' Topography is not difficult to understand (I'd say quite the contrary). Modern geography is not "complicated or convoluted" either. The world is just as beautiful, regardless of people's understanding of it.

I take the bible as an authority on science.

I'm not so sure if that's wise or truthful, or whether it has any merit in the eyes of God.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 04:58:29 PM by Romaios » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #109 on: April 26, 2013, 05:07:03 PM »

Is the Nile more orderly and beautiful if it springs in Cosmas' Orient rather than in Africa?
It flows through both.  The Garden of Eden is just more upstream.  
In 2006, I visited the spring by Gish Abay Mikael Church where the Blue Nile originates.

"The source of the Blue Nile is a spring called Gish Abay in Ethiopia.
This is the source of Gilgal Abay (meaning the little Abay), which is the most voluminous of the some sixty rivers flowing into Lake Tana.
Although the Nile Quest has attracted emperors and explorers alike since Antiquity, after the sources of the Nile were discovered the majority of studies have focused on hydrology and not on cultural and religious aspects of the river.
Gish Abay has been seen as the outlet of the river Gihon flowing directly from Paradise linking this world with Heaven.
The holiness of Abay and the source in particular have had and still have an important role in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church."
http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=22906

"Gish Abay (formerly known as Sekela) is a town and the administrative  center of Sekela woreda (district) in West Gojjam. The name Gish Abay
 has always been associated with the source of Gilgel Abay ("Little Abay") River, the actual site of the stream-well is located on the southwest
corner of the town, a few step southwest of St. Michael's Church."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZonY5CQv-ng

The spring is located approxiamtely 70 miles south of Barhar Dar which is on the southern shore of Lake Tana.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:10:14 PM by Dionysii » Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Posts: 16,167



« Reply #110 on: April 26, 2013, 05:09:47 PM »

Dionysii,

I am not sure if it was in this thread or the other, but I was wondering how did you come to these conclusions personally? I've truly never met anyone who has held such views. Strict creationists, sure. But those who would hold to a Biblically based cosmology, never.

I don't understand much of what you've posted in these threads or in the Old Believer thread, but I've found the spirit and content of your posts to be quite remarkable.

Thanks. Don't let the criticisms around here sour your mood too much. It's a rare case to "meet" someone who has a very antiquated (in the truest sense) understanding of things without it being seemingly motivated by a knee jerk and uninformed reactionarianism.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:10:12 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Gradually fading away on a strict punishment schedule.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #111 on: April 26, 2013, 05:16:37 PM »

Gish Abay has been seen as the outlet of the river Gihon flowing directly from Paradise linking this world with Heaven.

The holiness of Abay and the source in particular have had and still have an important role in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church."
http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=22906

Now there's your Indo-Ethiopian connection.  laugh

Mythology can be so much more fun than science...

What I don't get is how "Christian" mythology is superior to pagan mythology. 
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:27:07 PM by Romaios » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #112 on: April 26, 2013, 05:28:19 PM »

Dionysii,

I am not sure if it was in this thread or the other, but I was wondering how did you come to these conclusions personally? I've truly never met anyone who has held such views. Strict creationists, sure. But those who would hold to a Biblically based cosmology, never.

I don't understand much of what you've posted in these threads or in the Old Believer thread, but I've found the spirit and content of your posts to be quite remarkable.

Thanks. Don't let the criticisms around here sour your mood too much. It's a rare case to "meet" someone who has a very antiquated (in the truest sense) understanding of things without it being seemingly motivated by a knee jerk and uninformed reactionarianism.
Appreciate that.  I posted it elsewhere, but I'll summarize.

A protestant gave me a bible commentary with a transparently effeminate explanation of a geocentric verse in Ecclesiastes.
I threw away the commentary and became a geocentrist within an hour.  
I searched for a geocentric organization and found none except Charles Johnson's Flat Earth Society.
I do know of spherical geocentric organizations now, but it's too late for that is mediocre compared to what I came to believe.
I wrote to him, and he sent me information about a book written in 1865 upon which his movement was based.  
I got the bok through interlibrary loan and photocopied it.  I was convinced by the second chapter.

I had earlier that same year (back in the mid-1990's) come across a reference to Cosmas Indicopleustes in Webster's Biographical dictionary as as one who had made a Byzantine Christian map of the world to refute the pagan view, but I didn't realize it was a flat earth book at that time.

I later made contact with Robert Schadewald who was himself an evolutionist, but a science writer who had written articles about the flat earth society since the 1970's and had become an expert on the history of the modern flat earth movement which originated in Britain in the nineteenth century.  Schadewald was a real laid back and likeable guy and also a friend of Charles Johnson whose theological views were that of a protestant fundamentalist, but he had been the head of the flat earth society since 1970.  From Schadewald's articles I found out that Cosmas Indicopleustes held a flat earth view.

Johnson and Schadewald both died within a year of each other in 2000/2001.

The Flat Earth Bible
by Robert Schadewald
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #113 on: April 26, 2013, 05:29:50 PM »

Gish Abay has been seen as the outlet of the river Gihon flowing directly from Paradise linking this world with Heaven.

The holiness of Abay and the source in particular have had and still have an important role in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church."
http://library.witpress.com/pages/PaperInfo.asp?PaperID=22906

Now there's your Indo-Ethiopian connection.  laugh

Mythology can be so much more fun than science...

What I don't get is how "Christian" mythology is superior to pagan mythology. 

I don't see any difference between listening to you and listening to an atheist.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #114 on: April 26, 2013, 05:32:53 PM »

I take the bible as an authority on science.

I'm not so sure if that's wise or truthful, or whether it has any merit in the eyes of God.

You presume to speak for God.  Understand.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #115 on: April 26, 2013, 05:40:49 PM »

Dionysii,
Don't let the criticisms around here sour your mood too much.

I would say my appraisal of this forum and quite a few individuals who use it has taken quite a beating. 
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,627


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #116 on: April 26, 2013, 05:41:14 PM »

This is a great read for anyone interested in another forgotten movement present throughout history:

« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:42:31 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

"...you are the orphan, not the protagonist."

-St. Seraphim of Vyritsa, 'This was from me'
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #117 on: April 26, 2013, 05:44:12 PM »

I don't see any difference between listening to you and listening to an atheist.

Just as I don't see much of a difference between listening to you talk about the source of the Nile and that video on youtube about Mother Ganga.

The way I see it, Christianity revolves around Christ, not a mythological worldview. Once they are blessed on Theophany, all waters are as sacred to us as those of the Jordan. Which became sacred to us only because he was baptized there.   

We no longer worship God in a Temple or on a sacred mountain, but in spirit and truth. The shadow of the Law and the old types have passed with the arrival of grace. There is no longer Jew or Gentile. Christianity is about God entering real history, not mythology.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:44:37 PM by Romaios » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #118 on: April 26, 2013, 05:46:45 PM »

Speak for yourself.

As far as I am concerned, your God and my God are different.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #119 on: April 26, 2013, 05:48:58 PM »

As far as I am concerned, your God and my God are different.

Why so? Isn't there one God, one Lord, one Spirit and one Baptism in the Orthodox Church?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 05:49:57 PM by Romaios » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #120 on: April 26, 2013, 05:51:06 PM »

Dionysii,

Thanks. Don't let the criticisms around here sour your mood too much. It's a rare case to "meet" someone who has a very antiquated (in the truest sense) understanding of things without it being seemingly motivated by a knee jerk and uninformed reactionarianism.

I think my experience on this forum has been edifying since I have had a genuine experience of what the "Orthodox" are like.
The time is not wasted.
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #121 on: April 26, 2013, 05:52:40 PM »

As far as I am concerned, your God and my God are different.

Why so? Isn't there one God, one Lord, one Spirit and one Baptism in the Orthodox Church?

The conversation is not headed in a good direction, dude.  Peace, out.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,496



WWW
« Reply #122 on: April 26, 2013, 06:23:17 PM »

Today we have very powerful telescopes. If one points one of these towards the horizon on a stretch of land with no mountains and sees something way beyond what is expected,then there is a point. To get really far, one could use laser ranging. In fact, you should be able to signal Alaska from somewhere in Oceania.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,571


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #123 on: April 26, 2013, 06:47:33 PM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?

From the Flat Earth Society's wiki:



That white ring around the edge is Antarctica, which they say is not a continent to the South but a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth.

"Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond."


The wall? Isn't that protected by the Night's Watch? ..... wrong fantasy...sorry.
Logged
Arachne
Trinary Unit || Resident Bossy Boots
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 3,470


Tending Brigid's flame


« Reply #124 on: April 26, 2013, 06:52:28 PM »

What would a "flat earth" look like from space?

From the Flat Earth Society's wiki:

That white ring around the edge is Antarctica, which they say is not a continent to the South but a wall of ice surrounding the entire earth.

"Beyond the ice wall is a topic of great interest to the Flat Earth Society. To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall and returned to tell of their journey. What we do know is that it encircles the earth and serves to hold in our oceans and helps protect us from whatever lies beyond."


The wall? Isn't that protected by the Night's Watch? ..... wrong fantasy...sorry.

You tell me. I half expected a 'the Others take the curious ones!' codicil or something.
Logged

'When you live your path all the time, you end up with both more path and more time.'~Venecia Rauls

Blog ~ Bookshelf ~ Jukebox
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #125 on: April 26, 2013, 06:59:11 PM »

This is what earth looks like:

Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #126 on: April 26, 2013, 08:38:33 PM »

This is what earth looks like:


I'm losing track. Would that be inside the hollow earth, on the surface of the flat earth, or on the other side of the flat earth?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #127 on: April 27, 2013, 10:36:21 AM »

Dionysii, you may claim to be a submariner. I have to believe, at the least, that you were not assigned to any position that required knowledge of navigation. I've never done open water sailing, but I know the principles; moreover, my father worked on the Transit satellite navigation system, as well as on other satellites which have visited asteroids or are on their way out of the solar system. He also worked on Apollo and Skylab instruments.

All systems of open water navigation depend upon knowledge of the spherical form of the earth; Transit relied upon the orbital motion of the satellites for its operating principles. None of your stupid quibbles moves me. Beyond all the nonsense you've promulgated, you have in effect called my father a liar. He is a person of absolute integrity; you I would take to be either a troll or a crank, but in either case your claims are beyond the pale. If it were my forum, you would already be blocked.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2013, 10:38:24 AM by Keble » Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #128 on: April 29, 2013, 03:51:54 AM »

Cosmas Indicopleustes writes that the four rivers of the Garden of Eden flow westward underground and resurface in the habitable parts of the world.

How do you think he learned that? Revelation?

A couple of my remarks likely came across as rather cruel - particularly to Romaios.
I just wanted to say that nothing malicious was intended, and I ask God and Romaios for forgiveness.
Peace, brother.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,905



« Reply #129 on: April 29, 2013, 08:25:23 AM »

A couple of my remarks likely came across as rather cruel - particularly to Romaios.
I just wanted to say that nothing malicious was intended, and I ask God and Romaios for forgiveness.
Peace, brother.

Forgive me, also. Most of the times malice is not what I have in mind, but it creeps into my posts. 

I wish you a blessed Holy Week and Pascha!  Smiley 
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #130 on: April 29, 2013, 12:24:49 PM »

Dionysii, you may claim to be a submariner. I have to believe, at the least, that you were not assigned to any position that required knowledge of navigation. I've never done open water sailing, but I know the principles; moreover, my father worked on the Transit satellite navigation system, as well as on other satellites which have visited asteroids or are on their way out of the solar system. He also worked on Apollo and Skylab instruments.

All systems of open water navigation depend upon knowledge of the spherical form of the earth; Transit relied upon the orbital motion of the satellites for its operating principles. None of your stupid quibbles moves me. Beyond all the nonsense you've promulgated, you have in effect called my father a liar. He is a person of absolute integrity; you I would take to be either a troll or a crank, but in either case your claims are beyond the pale. If it were my forum, you would already be blocked.

No doubt that your dad's very perceptive indeed.
Considering your reaction, did he ever find it necessary to have you assessed for paranoid schizophrenia?

EDIT:  Be safe. Smiley
 20 days of moderation for rough personal attack. All your posts will have to be approved by a moderator prior to publishing - MK.
« Last Edit: April 29, 2013, 12:26:46 PM by Dionysii » Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #131 on: July 13, 2013, 02:38:05 PM »

What is so "fine-tuned" or "unique" about the state of our universe? "Fine-tuned" and "complexity" and all those other adjectives are merely manmade concepts which describe our perception of the universe. They have NO basis in science, nor are they objective like math. They are merely sentiments of our thoughts and feelings--our attempt to apply manmade, relative qualities to an objective, non-manmade object. It doesn't add up to me.

What really makes the state of our cosmos any more special than any of the other countless possibilities? We only see it as special merely because we feel that it is special--we cannot scientifically prove that it is special because concepts like "fine-tuning" are not scientific. Our universe had an equal chance of being different, what makes its present state special at all?
http://katachriston.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/fibonacci-fractals-and-inorganic-teleology/

Among the most philosophically challenging scientific data of the last half century are those relating to the physical constants  of the universe (listed below) which allow it to be a cosmos instead of utterly disordered chaos. These constants were “finely tuned” to their present values when the universe came into existence out of absolutely nothing roughly 13.7 billion years ago. You cannot derive their values from something more basic; they simply occurred as “givens” from the first second of our universe’s existence. These values did not develop but were present full-blown at singularity. They did not evolve: they simply were.

Cosmologists Barrow and Tipler wondered what would happen if they were slightly different. Tinker ever so slightly with the values of any of the basic physical constants, and life would have been impossible, not just life of our kind, but life of any kind that involves complexity.

Because of their highly ordered nature, random origin of the constants has been widely conceded to be effectively zero probability (cf. physicist Donald Page has calculated the odds as 1 in 10,000,000^124    By comparison, there are "only" 10^18 seconds since the creation of the universe and around 10^80 atoms in the observable universe).

Mathematician Emile Borel affirmed that anything with odds of happening less than one in 10^50 is impossible (Borel is best known for creating the the first effective theory of measuring sets of points beginning the modern theory of functions of a real variable). Random origin of the constants is well beyond this threshold -by orders of magnitude; selection by lottery would only overcome this statistical obstacle if there were an infinite number of unobservable universes from which ours was selected, yet a universe generating “machine” would also have to be exceptionally highly ordered too, and contemporary physicists have recently suggesting that multiple universes would be clones of one another rather than infinitely variable as the infinite unobservable multi-universes lottery selection theory requires.

Many physicists and philosophers have been attracted to similar arguments in the last thirty years (during which the ramifications of the delicately balanced physical constants first came to our attention; cf. the lecture by Dr. Francis Collins (PhD, & MD), first and long-time director of the Human Genome Project, here.  Collins’ PhD is in Quantum Mechanics, though his focus now is on genetics). It was this issue which former leading atheist and world famous philosopher Antony Flew cited as convincing him to abandon atheism for belief in God (many atheists claim it was rather because Flew must have become senile!).

Contemporary thinkers who remain atheists attempt to escape this conundrum in the only way left to them: they postulate a hypothetical infinite number of unobservable universes from which a highly ordered one could have been a random occurrence. Contemporary atheism is thus forced to argue for the actuality of an essentially zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

    “‘I can’t believe that!’ said Alice. ‘Can’t you?’ the Queen said in a pitying tone. ‘Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes.’ Alice laughed. ‘There’s no use trying,’ she said: ‘one can’t believe impossible things.’ ‘I daresay you haven’t had much practice, said the Queen. ‘When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.’” -Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass

The slightest alteration of the following physical constants would result in a universe incapable of supporting life -not just life of our kind, but life of any kind that involves complexity, and in a universe that would be chaos rather than cosmos:

Gravitational Coupling Constant
Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
Weak Nuclear Force Coupling Constant
Electromagnetic Coupling Constant
Ratio of Protons to Electrons
Ratio of Electron to Proton Mass
Expansion Rate of the Universe
Entropy Level of the Universe
Mass of the Universe
Uniformity of the Universe
Stability of Protons
Fine Structure Constants
Velocity of Light
Distance Between Stars
Rate of Luminosity of Stars
8Be, 12C, and 4He Nuclear Energy Levels.

An infinite number of unobservable universes -even were it the case- would not, of course, necessarily “belong” to our atheist friends who need it so badly to account for zero probability of random origin of the universe’s physical constants  at singularity; in fact it would be a perfect case scenerio of the ancient Augustinian cosmological theodicy of pleroma, which posited all possible varieties and ranges of entities might actually exist; we will leave that subject for a  possible future post; let us now move along to consider the central topic of this essay.
Logged

Silly Stars
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,240



« Reply #132 on: July 13, 2013, 03:07:01 PM »

Contemporary thinkers who remain atheists attempt to escape this conundrum in the only way left to them: they postulate a hypothetical infinite number of unobservable universes from which a highly ordered one could have been a random occurrence. Contemporary atheism is thus forced to argue for the actuality of an essentially zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

I was going to tell you to stop knocking down straw men, but maybe you are just unaware of what many atheists say. Something like: "The universe is here. Life is here. That's great. Problem solves itself. Who says we need to explain why we are lucky enough to be here? The universe is the way it is, who decided that there had to be some mystical reason that it was exactly this way? Because it's unlikely? So what? The universe makes our type of life possible, and perhaps probable, and voila, we're here. If it wasn't possible we wouldn't be here. No need to assume some magic reason for any of this."
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 03:20:13 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #133 on: July 13, 2013, 03:25:58 PM »

Contemporary thinkers who remain atheists attempt to escape this conundrum in the only way left to them: they postulate a hypothetical infinite number of unobservable universes from which a highly ordered one could have been a random occurrence. Contemporary atheism is thus forced to argue for the actuality of an essentially zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

I was going to tell you to stop knocking down straw men, but maybe you are just unaware of what many atheists say. Something like: "The universe is here. Life is here. That's great. Problem solves itself. Who says we need to explain why we are lucky enough to be here? The universe is the way it is, who decided that there had to be some mystical reason that it was exactly this way? Because it's unlikely? So what? The universe makes our type of life possible, and perhaps probable, and voila, we're here. If it wasn't possible we wouldn't be here. No need to assume some magic reason for any of this."
The problem I see that that argument, and I've heard it many times, is that if I were to roll a 6 sided die 1000 times and it always came up 6, I could say "Well that is the way it happened, that is great, there is no need to explain why that happened and no further investigation is needed.  It was the way it was and there is no other explanation needed". Or, I could say: "I wonder if this die is weighted, or perhaps every side of the die has a 6 on it.  Perhaps, I should inspect this die a bit more closer".  Some atheists do this, and they resolve the problem by postulating a multi-verse in which there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that was randomly good enough to sustain life and for the physical laws to work consistently.  I can respect that position; it is at least an attempt to explain even if it is just a hypothesis, but to put blinders on and say there is no reason to try and understand the "why" seems the very antithesis of the scientific method that they love to trumpet.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Asteriktos
Pegleg J
Protostrator
***************
Online Online

Faith: Like an arrow to the knee
Posts: 27,240



« Reply #134 on: July 13, 2013, 03:57:29 PM »

While I disagree, and frankly do so strongly, this is not the point. What I was responding to mostly was this idea that atheists were somehow painted into a corner and "the only way left to them" was to postulate multiple universes. A quick google search brings up a dozen or more different answers to the fine tuning argument. And most atheists don't even worry about it. Hence my reference to a straw man. My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.
Logged

I'll bet I look like a goof.

"And since when have Christians become afraid of rain?"
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #135 on: July 13, 2013, 04:06:19 PM »

While I disagree, and frankly do so strongly, this is not the point. What I was responding to mostly was this idea that atheists were somehow painted into a corner and "the only way left to them" was to postulate multiple universes. A quick google search brings up a dozen or more different answers to the fine tuning argument. And most atheists don't even worry about it. Hence my reference to a straw man. My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.
Sorry, I'm confused, you disagree with me or with the atheist argument?

I do agree that atheists are not "painted into a corner".  There are many responses to the fine tuned argument, some better and some worse, which is why I don't necessarily find the "proofs" for or against God to be all the beneficial or helpful.  There is no set of premises that can be established that both sides would agree to.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #136 on: July 13, 2013, 04:23:22 PM »

While I disagree, and frankly do so strongly, this is not the point. What I was responding to mostly was this idea that atheists were somehow painted into a corner and "the only way left to them" was to postulate multiple universes.
The arguments presented in academic contexts fall into two classes: those arguing from a premise of one universe, and those positing multiple universes. The point of the article is regarding the difficulties for a single universe premise and/or models positing a finite number of alternate universes.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 04:29:18 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #137 on: July 13, 2013, 06:13:23 PM »

My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.

Chris Hedges analyzes the trend of aggressive atheism which echoes the worst aspects of the religious far right and shares its fascist politics. 
This movement does not represent all atheists, but it does a have disproportionate representation in media that squelches the views of both moderate atheists as well as religious people whom it stigmatizes.

'I Don't Believe in Atheists'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXG4WJ1GKr4
Logged
Dionysii
Banned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Old Rite Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Metr. Kornilii of Russia
Posts: 642



« Reply #138 on: July 13, 2013, 06:28:50 PM »

My point is not that atheists are right, merely that they aren't being represented fairly.

Indeed.  Writers like Jean Paul Sartre are underrepresented while voice is given to rogues like Christopher Hitchens. 
I consider it unfortunate that Sartre was an atheist, but I respect much of what he said. 

As to Christopher Hitchens, at least he was consistent.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #139 on: July 15, 2013, 09:58:18 PM »

Contemporary thinkers who remain atheists attempt to escape this conundrum in the only way left to them: they postulate a hypothetical infinite number of unobservable universes from which a highly ordered one could have been a random occurrence. Contemporary atheism is thus forced to argue for the actuality of an essentially zero-probability event by postulating something in principle unobservable (non-scientific/metaphysical).

I was going to tell you to stop knocking down straw men, but maybe you are just unaware of what many atheists say. Something like: "The universe is here. Life is here. That's great. Problem solves itself. Who says we need to explain why we are lucky enough to be here? The universe is the way it is, who decided that there had to be some mystical reason that it was exactly this way? Because it's unlikely? So what? The universe makes our type of life possible, and perhaps probable, and voila, we're here. If it wasn't possible we wouldn't be here. No need to assume some magic reason for any of this."
The problem I see that that argument, and I've heard it many times, is that if I were to roll a 6 sided die 1000 times and it always came up 6, I could say "Well that is the way it happened, that is great, there is no need to explain why that happened and no further investigation is needed.  It was the way it was and there is no other explanation needed". Or, I could say: "I wonder if this die is weighted, or perhaps every side of the die has a 6 on it.  Perhaps, I should inspect this die a bit more closer".  Some atheists do this, and they resolve the problem by postulating a multi-verse in which there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in one that was randomly good enough to sustain life and for the physical laws to work consistently.  I can respect that position; it is at least an attempt to explain even if it is just a hypothesis, but to put blinders on and say there is no reason to try and understand the "why" seems the very antithesis of the scientific method that they love to trumpet.
The problem with the multiverse is that other universes are beyond our ability to observe and test their existence. But if science is supposed to organize knowledge by observation and testable explanations, then the untestable multiverse theories would be more in the line of mythology and not science.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #140 on: July 15, 2013, 10:01:13 PM »


I consider it unfortunate that Sartre was an atheist, but I respect much of what he said. 


I'll give Sartre this. He consistently lived and spoke about atheism. He and Nietchze (always misspell that) are what I consider real atheists.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #141 on: August 21, 2013, 08:05:02 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #142 on: August 21, 2013, 08:46:25 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis

We do that a lot in science without realizing it.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #143 on: August 21, 2013, 09:19:49 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis
What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #144 on: August 21, 2013, 09:25:21 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis
What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.
That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #145 on: August 21, 2013, 09:29:25 PM »

What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.

Strange ! I thought that people who were quoted in the video know something about astronomy.  Smiley
If they say there is no evidence to reject such a model, why do you think they never thought about these things ?

Here is George Ellis`s profile from wikipedia :

George Francis Rayner Ellis, FRS, Hon. FRSSAf, (born 11 August 1939), is the Emeritus Distinguished Professor of Complex Systems in the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town in South Africa. He co-authored The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time with University of Cambridge physicist Stephen Hawking, published in 1973, and is considered one of the world's leading theorists in cosmology.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 09:35:01 PM by davillas » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #146 on: August 21, 2013, 09:36:33 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #147 on: August 21, 2013, 09:53:15 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #148 on: August 21, 2013, 10:05:14 PM »


No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.

Is the ball coming down or is the Earth moving up ?  Smiley
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #149 on: August 21, 2013, 10:09:21 PM »

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. - George Ellis

I don't think that is true; that is, I don't believe he can construct such a model. One need only go back to Brahe's final attempts at keeping the Ptolemaic model going: he basically laid the earth's orbit as an epicycle on each planet, so they revolved around the sun as it revolved around the earth. That's what you would have to do to make a geocentric model which fit the Newtonian predictions, except that the math is so much harder that I don't that that, in practice, it quickly becomes too complex to actually be calculated. Throwing relativity into the mix only makes it worse.

You can construct a "range of models", but that range is entirely constrained by "producing behavior consistent with relativity and Newtonian mechanics." I doubt that someone can construct geocentric model which produces the same behavior because I think the complexity of substituting the motion of the sun for that of the earth would be too hard to handle in the end. And Ellis, of all people, is probably as qualified as any to give it a try. But I don't think he could make it work.

Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #150 on: August 21, 2013, 10:13:16 PM »


No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.

Is the ball coming down or is the Earth moving up ?  Smiley

Or do objects move towards one another from some other mechanism that is not "A force." In fact, many philosophers of science object to the use of the term "force" because it comes from anthropomorphizing thinking. In fact, Russell believes that the theory that objects move to the location of least possible kinetic energy has just as much explanatory power as the concept of a gravitational force.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #151 on: August 21, 2013, 10:19:49 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
??
The modern post Einstein explanation for gravity is that it is curvature in space time caused by massive bodies. According to Newton, force is defined as Mass x acceleration, so even if you postulate that gravity is space time curvature, a basketball thrown up in the air will experience a force given by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity on the earth, excluding of course the lesser force of air resistance. 
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #152 on: August 21, 2013, 10:21:49 PM »

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. - George Ellis

I don't think that is true; that is, I don't believe he can construct such a model. One need only go back to Brahe's final attempts at keeping the Ptolemaic model going: he basically laid the earth's orbit as an epicycle on each planet, so they revolved around the sun as it revolved around the earth. That's what you would have to do to make a geocentric model which fit the Newtonian predictions, except that the math is so much harder that I don't that that, in practice, it quickly becomes too complex to actually be calculated. Throwing relativity into the mix only makes it worse.

You can construct a "range of models", but that range is entirely constrained by "producing behavior consistent with relativity and Newtonian mechanics." I doubt that someone can construct geocentric model which produces the same behavior because I think the complexity of substituting the motion of the sun for that of the earth would be too hard to handle in the end. And Ellis, of all people, is probably as qualified as any to give it a try. But I don't think he could make it work.


Right. You can draw a couple of eccentric curves with the sun and the various planets going around the earth, but this does not take into account the force of gravity.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #153 on: August 21, 2013, 10:27:22 PM »

That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things.
I can prove to you that gravitational force exists. Simply come with me to the top of the empire state building and step forward. I won't try it, since I know that there is a force which will pull you down. I am just as certain that there is a gravitational force as I am sure that the sun will not shine all day long at the equator.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #154 on: August 21, 2013, 10:32:25 PM »

Oh boy, this reminds me of the " it must be old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for the chemicals to evolve."  Smiley

Such a model certainly changes a lot of things in cosmology. If you ask what makes everything to move then my answer is dark energy.  Grin

Here, i`ve found another interesting quote :

" Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” - Edwin Hubble
« Last Edit: August 21, 2013, 10:33:28 PM by davillas » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #155 on: August 21, 2013, 10:43:24 PM »

Oh boy, this reminds me of the " it must be old because otherwise there isn`t enough time for the chemicals to evolve."  Smiley

Such a model certainly changes a lot of things in cosmology. If you ask what makes everything to move then my answer is dark energy.  Grin

Here, i`ve found another interesting quote :

" Such a condition would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central Earth…This hypothesis cannot be disproved, but it is unwelcome and would only be accepted as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore we disregard this possibility…. the unwelcome position of a favored location must be avoided at all costs…. such a favored position is intolerable…Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position…must be compensated by spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape” - Edwin Hubble
Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #156 on: August 21, 2013, 10:51:23 PM »

And here is Stephen Hawking :

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

So i don`t understand why we are arguing anymore. If any person wants to read more on this subject here is a nice article :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe-2jszrulazj6wq-39/
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #157 on: August 21, 2013, 10:55:16 PM »

Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

Again, another " it must be old because"...some naturalistic nonsense argument . The theory is that the EARTH IS SPECIAL. You won`t see anything like it anywhere in the universe.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #158 on: August 21, 2013, 11:08:02 PM »

Simple observation shows that there are no known cases anywhere in the universe of large massive objects circling around small light objects.

Again, another " it must be old because"...some naturalistic nonsense argument . The theory is that the EARTH IS SPECIAL. You won`t see anything like it anywhere in the universe.
A fixed earth would not explain the fact of the  coriolis force of rotation according to which weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and colckwise  in the southern hemisphere.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #159 on: August 21, 2013, 11:09:06 PM »

This is an interesting video about the geocentric universe :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYClYUEVeg0

"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that." - George Ellis

OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #160 on: August 21, 2013, 11:15:26 PM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #161 on: August 21, 2013, 11:22:02 PM »

What the geocentric people forget to mention are the gravitational forces in play. Also, under geocentrism, it would mean that all the stars and galaxies rotate about the earth in a 24 hour period.

Strange ! I thought that people who were quoted in the video know something about astronomy.  Smiley

From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #162 on: August 21, 2013, 11:30:18 PM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "

The precession of the Foucault pendulum is easily described by the coriolis force of a rotating earth.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #163 on: August 21, 2013, 11:35:27 PM »



From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.




You know, when you find a quote or a part of a quote on internet you can put the words on Google and see if you can find it somewhere else. So go to Google and write George Ellis Geocentrism or put a part of the quote on Google and search for results. I don`t undestand why you express your doubts about the maker of the video before doing that.

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Geocentric_model

I agree that Fred Hoyle was an excentric individual but that doesn`t mean he didn`t understood astronomy.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #164 on: August 21, 2013, 11:48:05 PM »

And here is Stephen Hawking :

Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe. There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!

So i don`t understand why we are arguing anymore. If any person wants to read more on this subject here is a nice article :

http://harmoniaphilosophica.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/earth-at-the-center-of-the-universe-2jszrulazj6wq-39/

The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #165 on: August 21, 2013, 11:56:09 PM »

The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only.

They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #166 on: August 21, 2013, 11:57:32 PM »



From what I know of them, they did or do. (Though that does not prevent them from having unusual ideas or eccentric opinion.  Sir Fred Hoyle for example thought that the fossil archeopteryx was a fake.  But he wasn't a paleontologist, so he was out of his area of expertise).    http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html
 
 The quotes are not complete nor in context and since they say things that sound exceedingly peculiar for astronomers/cosmologists I am dubious as to whether that video is being 1) honest as to what was really written or 2) snipped things to fit what the creator of the video things or 3) they don't really understand what they're quoting.




You know, when you find a quote or a part of a quote on internet you can put the words on Google and see if you can find it somewhere else. So go to Google and write George Ellis Geocentrism or put a part of the quote on Google and search for results. I don`t undestand why you express your doubts about the maker of the video before doing that.

http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Geocentric_model

I agree that Fred Hoyle was an excentric individual but that doesn`t mean he didn`t understood astronomy.

Indeed.  But I don't think that the creators of the video actually understand the subject.   I doubt the maker because of the the out of context quotes, the pictures that don't really have anything to do with the words being said, the clips taken from other people's work like the ones from Star Trek and what looks like a film about telescopes, and that the simulation of the planets orbiting the Sun are going clock-wise which would be from the south.  

And I assure you that I know about research and finding information.  I've found mangled quotes that others have shaped to their own ends here on OC.net.  But when someone doesn't give a proper citation when they're supposed to be really quoting someone that is also suspicious.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #167 on: August 22, 2013, 12:01:45 AM »



The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.

I didn`t even bothered to remember the name of Dr. Bouw because i`ve never heard of him.  Smiley

The quote is from A brief history of time. Again, if you put a part of the quote on internet you will find the whole book online.
No, i don`t believe they think the Sun is orbiting Earth, on the contrary, but what i am asking is if this is because there is strong evidence to suggest that or because they don`t want the Earth to be considered special ? I mean the idea that the universe might look the same from whatever point in space we look at it. Did we built models of the universe based on that idea ? As you see, Hawking is saying that there is no evidence for or against it.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #168 on: August 22, 2013, 12:08:26 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "


"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. ... There is, however, an alternate explanation:  the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.  ... We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption.  We believe it only on grounds of modesty:  it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

    S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p 42."
http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/ultimate.html

So that gives a citation which can at least then be looked up in the book itself, which I think we have a copy of on the shelves, but it'll take a while to find and it's late right now.  Please note the rest of the final sentence that was left off in the first reference to this passage. I will also note that there is an ellipsis in this one, too.  But at least now the source material can be checked for context and accuracy.


Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #169 on: August 22, 2013, 12:17:26 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  

I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "


"Now at first sight, all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. ... There is, however, an alternate explanation:  the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too.  ... We have no scientific evidence for, or against this assumption.  We believe it only on grounds of modesty:  it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe!"

    S. Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1988, p 42."
http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/ultimate.html

So that gives a citation which can at least then be looked up in the book itself, which I think we have a copy of on the shelves, but it'll take a while to find and it's late right now.  Please note the rest of the final sentence that was left off in the first reference to this passage. I will also note that there is an ellipsis in this one, too.  But at least now the source material can be checked for context and accuracy.




http://sqentropy.dyndns.org/ebook/Stephen%20Hawking%20-%20A%20brief%20history%20of%20time/b.html

There are no pauses, i took it from here.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #170 on: August 22, 2013, 12:21:01 AM »



OK. I watched it. That quote seems to be conflating at least two passages and I strongly suspect that it is being taken out of context.   Other quotes used have ellipses which would mean, if the person doing the citing is being careful and truthful about the quote, that some words have been left out. That can change the meaning of a supposed "quote" radically.  

The computer simulation of the Sun orbiting the Earth is only a human constructed set of drawings. It does not "prove" anything.  


I was not talking about the drawings. I did not pointed to what Sir Fred Hoyle and the other one have said. The only thing that interested me was the idea of rejecting the geocentric model on philosophical grounds only. As you see Hawking is saying exactly the same thing : "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty "

The precession of the Foucault pendulum is easily described by the coriolis force of a rotating earth.


I am replying to you Stanley as a friendly face (so to speak) instead of generally.

This topic happens to be an interest of mine since it generally diverges from my education. Some might call it a fetish, but really, all I am looking for is a peer reviewed article that refutes what I am going to say.

When I took astronomy and physics in college, I learned that all frames of reference are valid, including systems that involve rotating bodies. The issue is Einstein's theory of general relativity. I already had an unsatisfying debate about this with Sauron in the DEAD HORSE thread because I did not learn of any paper against generally relativity, only that I am a math deficient nerd (I am due to the invasion of Cambodia, but that is another story). In that thread I cited Einstein's description how a donkey pulling a merry-go-round, which serves as the frame of reference, can cause the entire universe to move. There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.

In regard to coriolis forces and Foucault's pendulum. There is a good thread on CAF explaining this (just search for coriolis). The thread date back to around 2004.

Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #171 on: August 22, 2013, 12:21:46 AM »



The quote is incomplete, lacking context and the "citation" in the long article "(10)" doesn't for me go to a place where there is an actual source given.  Do you really think that the scientists think that the Sun really is orbiting this planet every 24 hours?  

I apologize for being blunt by the way, but Dr. Gerardus Bouw is not in the same class as Sir Fred, or Dr.s Hubble and Hawking.

I didn`t even bothered to remember the name of Dr. Bouw because i`ve never heard of him.  Smiley

The quote is from A brief history of time. Again, if you put a part of the quote on internet you will find the whole book online.
No, i don`t believe they think the Sun is orbiting Earth, on the contrary, but what i am asking is if this is because there is strong evidence to suggest that or because they don`t want the Earth to be considered special ? I mean the idea that the universe might look the same from whatever point in space we look at it. Did we built models of the universe based on that idea ? As you see, Hawking is saying that there is no evidence for or against it.


I mean no disrespect to you, and I know that you are new here on OC.net, but making assumptions about other posters' knowledge or abilities can come across as rather patronizing.  Perhaps it is the crossing of messages that led to you repeating yourself on the concept of research.

Have you read  A Brief History of Time ?  One short quote does not mean that Dr. Hawking ideas should be based on just that portion.

And on the matter of evidence, there's the "Ulysses" Solar-Polar space probe that among other things was sent out to Jupiter so that the gravity field there could bend the path out of the ecliptic so that it could go around the Sun over its poles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29

The positions of the planets in their orbits are part of the calculations to make the probe go where it is supposed to go.

Edited for better sentence structure
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 12:30:11 AM by Ebor » Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #172 on: August 22, 2013, 12:26:37 AM »


They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.


What is not true ? Hawking is saying that : " We believe it only on grounds of modesty ". It means that based on our current knowledge of the universe geocentric models can be built just like the other models can be built. Why do we need to complicate things bringing tons of other notions into play ?

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #173 on: August 22, 2013, 12:38:53 AM »


They say that, but as I said above, I don't think it's really true. I don't think anyone can handle the mathematics of making a geocentric model imitate the behavior that a relativistic/Newtonian model produces. In the standard model, a spot on the earth takes a quite complex path summing the resultant motion of the galaxies, the sun within the galaxy, the earth around the sun, the rotation of the earth, and the precession of the poles; superimposing the inverse of that motion on everything else, when every other celestial body is following its own path due to the same principles, is too complex to compute; and needlessly so to boot. In practice such an attempt would have to calculate the earth's path as if it moved, and then invert that motion to add to everything else, because that's the only model we actually have.


What is not true ? Hawking is saying that : " We believe it only on grounds of modesty ". It means that based on our current knowledge of the universe geocentric models can be built just like the other models can be built.

I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #174 on: August 22, 2013, 12:44:49 AM »



I mean no disrespect to you, and I know that you are new here on OC.net, but making assumptions about other posters' knowledge or abilities can come across as rather patronizing.  Perhaps it is the crossing of messages that led to you repeating yourself on the concept of research.

Have you read  A Brief History of Time ?  One short quote does not mean that Dr. Hawking ideas should be based on one short quote.  

And on the matter of evidence, there's the "Ulysses" Solar-Polar space probe that among other things was sent out to Jupiter so that the gravity field there could bend the path out of the ecliptic so that it could go around the Sun over its poles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29


No, i didn`t read it, i read The grand design and i was disappointed. I know that his idea is that the Earth has no special place, i am not interested in his idea but rather in what made them to follow this path. I am sure that today you can bring a lot of other ideas into play, you can say that dark matter doesn`t allow a geocentric universe or that dark energy or whatever. Or that there was no Earth in that thing that came into being 13.5 billions years ago.
But the problem is this is like having a train in A station. And we make a theory that the train came through B, C, D and E. Then i say : wait a minute, maybe the train came trough F, G, H, and E. No you say, that`s stupid, that will mean the train never passed through C and D and we already know that.
The thing is such a view can change a lot of what we know today ( or what we think we know ) about the universe. But somewhere in the past we had to choose the path. So why did we choosed this B, C, D and E path ? This is the question.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #175 on: August 22, 2013, 12:47:51 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #176 on: August 22, 2013, 03:21:03 AM »

There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.
I thought that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant with a value of exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #177 on: August 22, 2013, 10:56:41 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html


You don't understand the article. It's not discussing Ptolemaic geocentrism; it's talking about resolving the apparent problems in reconciling the standard big bang models with what we can actually see from where we are. These problems have been around ever since it was realized that the internal motion of galaxies couldn't be explained by the mass associated with what they could see in those galaxies: they rotate as if they were much more massive than they visually appear to be. So that's how we got saddled with the notion of "dark matter" that we cannot see. That in turn gives problems with explaining how fast the universe appears to be expanding (I think-- I have to admit that for reasons I'm about to explain I haven't kept up with the field as much as I used to). So there is a great deal of debate about what is happening at these huge scales.

This has nothing to do with what's going on in a local neighborhood scale. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, apparently held on course by whatever mass there is locally; the earth moves around the sun, like any other planet, and the moon orbits this rotating orb. Our artificial satellites move through the solar system as dictated by mass and thrust and the movement of these bodies. Ellis does not say that all this is illusory and that the earth itself is immovable.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #178 on: August 22, 2013, 11:10:32 AM »



I'm saying that I think he's wrong, and I'm guessing that the reason he can permit himself to think otherwise is because he hasn't actually tried to construct such a model and work it. The only models we do have are Newtonian/relativistic, so to construct a geocentric model we would have to use the real model we have now to work out the motion of the earth, and then apply the inverse of that motion to the Newtonian/relativistic motion of everything in order to get their apparent geocentric motion. But besides questioning whether we could actually work the math and still get a useful model, the other point is that it is still a non-geocentric model, because the part of it that is doing all the work is the classic Newtonian/relativistic model! I won't admit that someone can come up with a geocentric model that is actually workable and which doesn't contain the current non-geocentric model with in it until some actually does such a thing.


Again, we are not talking about a guy on internet who thought it will be fun to make some noise. He is a real scientist. Here is his model :
http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sept01/Ellis/Ellis5_2.html


You don't understand the article. It's not discussing Ptolemaic geocentrism; it's talking about resolving the apparent problems in reconciling the standard big bang models with what we can actually see from where we are. These problems have been around ever since it was realized that the internal motion of galaxies couldn't be explained by the mass associated with what they could see in those galaxies: they rotate as if they were much more massive than they visually appear to be. So that's how we got saddled with the notion of "dark matter" that we cannot see. That in turn gives problems with explaining how fast the universe appears to be expanding (I think-- I have to admit that for reasons I'm about to explain I haven't kept up with the field as much as I used to). So there is a great deal of debate about what is happening at these huge scales.

This has nothing to do with what's going on in a local neighborhood scale. The sun orbits the center of the galaxy, apparently held on course by whatever mass there is locally; the earth moves around the sun, like any other planet, and the moon orbits this rotating orb. Our artificial satellites move through the solar system as dictated by mass and thrust and the movement of these bodies. Ellis does not say that all this is illusory and that the earth itself is immovable.

+1
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #179 on: August 22, 2013, 11:18:26 AM »

There is no fixed speed of light in general relativity, only that nothing can move faster that the speed of light, which is why neptune can move faster than speed of light set by special relativity.
I thought that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant with a value of exactly 299,792,458 meters per second.

It is in Special Relativity and E does equal MC^2.
From my limited understanding Special Relativity is limited to inertial systems (no acceleration/gravity).
General Relativity, which came later, adds acceleration/gravity.
A rotating earth as a frame of reference is an accelerated frame and is explained by General Relativity and not Special Relativity.

This is about as far as I can go without pounding my head against a wall.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #180 on: August 22, 2013, 03:26:31 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
??
The modern post Einstein explanation for gravity is that it is curvature in space time caused by massive bodies. According to Newton, force is defined as Mass x acceleration, so even if you postulate that gravity is space time curvature, a basketball thrown up in the air will experience a force given by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity on the earth, excluding of course the lesser force of air resistance. 
That's the current view  based on the current model. But what happens when their is another paradigm shift in physics? Just because certain mathematical absractions are useful for making predictions, it does not follow that such models describe the inner workings of physical bodies as they truly are. There is always a danger of making metaphysics out of mathematics.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #181 on: August 22, 2013, 03:30:23 PM »

That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things.
I can prove to you that gravitational force exists. Simply come with me to the top of the empire state building and step forward. I won't try it, since I know that there is a force which will pull you down. I am just as certain that there is a gravitational force as I am sure that the sun will not shine all day long at the equator.
That proves no such thing. All it proves is that my body moves towards the earth according to the inverse squar law. It does not tell me why.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #182 on: August 22, 2013, 06:36:50 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
??
The modern post Einstein explanation for gravity is that it is curvature in space time caused by massive bodies. According to Newton, force is defined as Mass x acceleration, so even if you postulate that gravity is space time curvature, a basketball thrown up in the air will experience a force given by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity on the earth, excluding of course the lesser force of air resistance. 
That's the current view  based on the current model. But what happens when their is another paradigm shift in physics? Just because certain mathematical absractions are useful for making predictions, it does not follow that such models describe the inner workings of physical bodies as they truly are. There is always a danger of making metaphysics out of mathematics.
What is your description of the inner workings of physical bodies as they truly are? Do you have such a description, or is this just another meaningless and undefined ambiguous  concept that has no applications in the real world.
And a paradigm shift does not mean that there is no gravity. It simply means that the model which we are currently employing to describe the force is in need of some modification because of some change in outlook, such as a change in scale from the very large to the very small. Gravity continues to exist, regardless of what some deconstructionist philosopher might claim about either its existence or his own existence. If you are so keen on asking why, you might ask why do deconstructionist philosophers exist except to create confusion. Certainly not to further our understanding of what gravity is.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2013, 06:48:59 PM by stanley123 » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #183 on: August 22, 2013, 06:42:26 PM »

That I am a geocentricist (I most certainly am not) but can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things.
I can prove to you that gravitational force exists. Simply come with me to the top of the empire state building and step forward. I won't try it, since I know that there is a force which will pull you down. I am just as certain that there is a gravitational force as I am sure that the sun will not shine all day long at the equator.
That proves no such thing. All it proves is that my body moves towards the earth according to the inverse squar law. It does not tell me why.
This is what gravity is: the attraction of one massive body to another. It is a  contradiction to say on the one hand that gravity does not exist but on the other hand to say that a massive body moves toward the earth according to the inverse square law.
Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,297



« Reply #184 on: August 24, 2013, 11:58:24 AM »



I mean no disrespect to you, and I know that you are new here on OC.net, but making assumptions about other posters' knowledge or abilities can come across as rather patronizing.  Perhaps it is the crossing of messages that led to you repeating yourself on the concept of research.

Have you read  A Brief History of Time ?  One short quote does not mean that Dr. Hawking ideas should be based on one short quote.  

And on the matter of evidence, there's the "Ulysses" Solar-Polar space probe that among other things was sent out to Jupiter so that the gravity field there could bend the path out of the ecliptic so that it could go around the Sun over its poles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_%28spacecraft%29


No, i didn`t read it, i read The grand design and i was disappointed. I know that his idea is that the Earth has no special place, i am not interested in his idea but rather in what made them to follow this path. I am sure that today you can bring a lot of other ideas into play, you can say that dark matter doesn`t allow a geocentric universe or that dark energy or whatever. Or that there was no Earth in that thing that came into being 13.5 billions years ago.
But the problem is this is like having a train in A station. And we make a theory that the train came through B, C, D and E. Then i say : wait a minute, maybe the train came trough F, G, H, and E. No you say, that`s stupid, that will mean the train never passed through C and D and we already know that.
The thing is such a view can change a lot of what we know today ( or what we think we know ) about the universe. But somewhere in the past we had to choose the path. So why did we choosed this B, C, D and E path ? This is the question.

Well, if you haven't read it, then just taking the one clip out of the work is not workable as extrapolating what Dr. Hawking writes in the rest of it.

Ummm. I'm sorry, but your train illustration doesn't make sense. For one thing since trains systems are built by people and schedules are set up by people they would certainly have a good idea of how a particular train got to station A while suggesting other routes would show conflict with the time-tables. 

May one ask if you personally belief that the planet Earth is stationary in space with the Sun and other planets going around it?  (of course the Moon does so that is why I did not include that in the question.) 

Have you taken any classes or read many books on how Science is properly done? 

I do not mean this facetiously but ask because I am trying to understand where you are coming from, as it were.

Thank you.
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,959


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #185 on: August 24, 2013, 12:03:11 PM »

...can you explain to me what a gravitational force is? We do not know that there are any such things. We only know that objects move in a uniform way according to the inverse square law. We come up with the idea of "forces" in order to explain that movement.
Gravity is an attractive interaction between massive bodies. We know that it exists since if you throw a basketball up in the air, it will come back down.

No, all we know is that if we throw a ball up in the air, it will come back down according to the inverse square rule. We have no idea why.
??
The modern post Einstein explanation for gravity is that it is curvature in space time caused by massive bodies. According to Newton, force is defined as Mass x acceleration, so even if you postulate that gravity is space time curvature, a basketball thrown up in the air will experience a force given by mg, where g is the acceleration due to gravity on the earth, excluding of course the lesser force of air resistance. 
That's the current view  based on the current model. But what happens when their is another paradigm shift in physics? Just because certain mathematical absractions are useful for making predictions, it does not follow that such models describe the inner workings of physical bodies as they truly are. There is always a danger of making metaphysics out of mathematics.
What is your description of the inner workings of physical bodies as they truly are? Do you have such a description, or is this just another meaningless and undefined ambiguous  concept that has no applications in the real world.
And a paradigm shift does not mean that there is no gravity. It simply means that the model which we are currently employing to describe the force is in need of some modification because of some change in outlook, such as a change in scale from the very large to the very small. Gravity continues to exist, regardless of what some deconstructionist philosopher might claim about either its existence or his own existence. If you are so keen on asking why, you might ask why do deconstructionist philosophers exist except to create confusion. Certainly not to further our understanding of what gravity is.
You think I'm a deconstructionist philosopher? That's rich! Cheesy It's much worse than that actually... I'm a Thomist.  Smiley As such, I don't think we should make a metaphysics out of our mathematics. We have no idea what gravity is, but we know how bodies move. What is deconstructionist about that? hmmmmmmm?
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #186 on: August 24, 2013, 01:56:56 PM »

"In Newton's time and for two hundred years afterwards, physicists spoke of the action of gravity as 'action at a distance,' a  phrase that was accepted as a substitute for explaining the physical mechanism, much as we speak of spirits or ghosts to explain unseen phenomena. The inability to comprehend the mechanism of gravity accentuates the power of mathematics, for Newton's work was, as the title of his Mathematical Principles indicates, entirely mathematical. His work and the additions made by his successors not only provided the calculation of the planetary motions that transcended observations but also enabled astronomers to predict phenomena such as eclipses of the sun and moon to a fraction of a second...

"Contrary to popular belief, no one has ever explained the physical reality of the force of gravitation. It is a fiction suggested by the human ability to exert force. The greatest science fiction stories are in the science of physics. However, mathematical deductions from the quantitative law proved so effective that this procedure has been accepted as an integral part of physical science. What science has done, then, is to sacrifice physical intelligibility for the sake of mathematical description and mathematical prediction..." (Morris Kline, Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge (NY: Oxford), pp. 122-123).

I'm with Papist on this one. And yet we are confident enough of Newton's equations to slingshot ourselves to the moon using mathematical equations of classical mechanics alone. Why does mind mirror nature to such a degree? (cf. Fr. Stanley Jaki's works, and Nobel Prize winner Eugene Wigner's essay (online) "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html )



« Last Edit: August 24, 2013, 02:05:46 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #187 on: August 24, 2013, 02:20:17 PM »


Well, if you haven't read it, then just taking the one clip out of the work is not workable as extrapolating what Dr. Hawking writes in the rest of it.

Ummm. I'm sorry, but your train illustration doesn't make sense. For one thing since trains systems are built by people and schedules are set up by people they would certainly have a good idea of how a particular train got to station A while suggesting other routes would show conflict with the time-tables. 

May one ask if you personally belief that the planet Earth is stationary in space with the Sun and other planets going around it?  (of course the Moon does so that is why I did not include that in the question.) 

Have you taken any classes or read many books on how Science is properly done? 

I do not mean this facetiously but ask because I am trying to understand where you are coming from, as it were.

Thank you.

The example with the train : The problem is that you chose B from the start. From there you go to C, D and E, because it is the only way you can come to A. But if the train started from F then it never passed through C,D and E so you can`t bring them on to disprove the theory. Which is what is happening in this topic but i am not that sophisticated, and it was not my intention to talk about that.
The problem i wanted to ask was this : Two good astronomers are telling us that there is no reason not to consider the Earth as the center of our universe. One of them ( Sir Fred Hoyle ) is saying that there is no good reason for why the geocentric model is wrong and the heliocentric model is right. The other one is saying that he can build such a model with the Earth in the centre .
And we have the third telling us how they chosed B back then, based on philosophical assumptions. I don`t understad why i have to read the whole book when it is written pretty clear " we have no evidence for or against it ". And i don`t understand why i have to understand what is C, D, and E and to argue about them when these people are telling us that there is no evidence that the Earth is not in the center of the universe ( or let`s say close to the center ).

The problem i have with the actual model is that even from my poor educated point of view i can`t agree with a model that uses notions like dark "something". When you postulate invisible mass and an invisible force to keep your model alive it means you put 2 big variables in the system. So for example, in the future you can say the dark energy is only .5 of what it is today or 2 times what it is today.

From my poor understanding science should work like this : You make a hypothesis and then you look for the evidence for and against it. So for example if according with your hypothesis the entire mass of the universe should be 100 and you look at the sky and you only find 4 you throw your bad papers to the garbage.  Or if let`s say the rate of expansion should decay in time and you look in the sky and you see that the rate of expansion is accelerating you do the same thing. You don`t start to create exotic invisible notions to fill the gaps of your theory.  But who am i to say how the science should work ?

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #188 on: August 24, 2013, 10:04:10 PM »

"In Newton's time and for two hundred years afterwards, physicists spoke of the action of gravity as 'action at a distance,' a  phrase that was accepted as a substitute for explaining the physical mechanism, much as we speak of spirits or ghosts to explain unseen phenomena. The inability to comprehend the mechanism of gravity accentuates the power of mathematics, for Newton's work was, as the title of his Mathematical Principles indicates, entirely mathematical. His work and the additions made by his successors not only provided the calculation of the planetary motions that transcended observations but also enabled astronomers to predict phenomena such as eclipses of the sun and moon to a fraction of a second...

"Contrary to popular belief, no one has ever explained the physical reality of the force of gravitation. It is a fiction suggested by the human ability to exert force. The greatest science fiction stories are in the science of physics. However, mathematical deductions from the quantitative law proved so effective that this procedure has been accepted as an integral part of physical science. What science has done, then, is to sacrifice physical intelligibility for the sake of mathematical description and mathematical prediction..." (Morris Kline, Mathematics and the Search for Knowledge (NY: Oxford), pp. 122-123).

I'm with Papist on this one. And yet we are confident enough of Newton's equations to slingshot ourselves to the moon using mathematical equations of classical mechanics alone. Why does mind mirror nature to such a degree? (cf. Fr. Stanley Jaki's works, and Nobel Prize winner Eugene Wigner's essay (online) "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences" http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html )




If gravity is a fiction, what causes a ball thrown up in the air to drop and not fly away?
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #189 on: August 25, 2013, 12:52:56 AM »


Well, if you haven't read it, then just taking the one clip out of the work is not workable as extrapolating what Dr. Hawking writes in the rest of it.

Ummm. I'm sorry, but your train illustration doesn't make sense. For one thing since trains systems are built by people and schedules are set up by people they would certainly have a good idea of how a particular train got to station A while suggesting other routes would show conflict with the time-tables. 

May one ask if you personally belief that the planet Earth is stationary in space with the Sun and other planets going around it?  (of course the Moon does so that is why I did not include that in the question.) 

Have you taken any classes or read many books on how Science is properly done? 

I do not mean this facetiously but ask because I am trying to understand where you are coming from, as it were.

Thank you.

The example with the train : The problem is that you chose B from the start. From there you go to C, D and E, because it is the only way you can come to A. But if the train started from F then it never passed through C,D and E so you can`t bring them on to disprove the theory. Which is what is happening in this topic but i am not that sophisticated, and it was not my intention to talk about that.
The problem i wanted to ask was this : Two good astronomers are telling us that there is no reason not to consider the Earth as the center of our universe. One of them ( Sir Fred Hoyle ) is saying that there is no good reason for why the geocentric model is wrong and the heliocentric model is right. The other one is saying that he can build such a model with the Earth in the centre .
And we have the third telling us how they chosed B back then, based on philosophical assumptions. I don`t understad why i have to read the whole book when it is written pretty clear " we have no evidence for or against it ". And i don`t understand why i have to understand what is C, D, and E and to argue about them when these people are telling us that there is no evidence that the Earth is not in the center of the universe ( or let`s say close to the center ).

The problem i have with the actual model is that even from my poor educated point of view i can`t agree with a model that uses notions like dark "something". When you postulate invisible mass and an invisible force to keep your model alive it means you put 2 big variables in the system. So for example, in the future you can say the dark energy is only .5 of what it is today or 2 times what it is today.

From my poor understanding science should work like this : You make a hypothesis and then you look for the evidence for and against it. So for example if according with your hypothesis the entire mass of the universe should be 100 and you look at the sky and you only find 4 you throw your bad papers to the garbage.  Or if let`s say the rate of expansion should decay in time and you look in the sky and you see that the rate of expansion is accelerating you do the same thing. You don`t start to create exotic invisible notions to fill the gaps of your theory.  But who am i to say how the science should work ?



Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct? That the question is not meaningless?

You already answered your question about the dark matter hypothesis. It is based on evidence that can be explained by non-light emitting matter that we cannot see from the planet earth. Do you really believe we should understand how the universe works at this point of time in our history?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #190 on: August 25, 2013, 01:36:54 AM »

Is the ball coming down or is the Earth moving up ? 
A point on the ball will experience large gravitational forces up and down because of the acceleration of the ball. A point on the earth will experience close to zero forces due to the movement of the ball. What is your reference frame for this two body problem?
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #191 on: August 25, 2013, 01:50:19 AM »

Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct?
You need to have absolute space, if you are going to talk about the center of the universe, and this is where Newton's laws will apply. But if you are talking about Newtonian mechanics, then the earth cannot be geostationary because its rotation is proven by the oblate earth, the Foucault pendulum, and the reason why satellites are launched close to the equator and to the east.  On the other hand, if you say that there is no center in the universe, then it is a contradiction to say that the earth is the center of the universe.  So there really is no basis for geocentrism.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #192 on: August 25, 2013, 03:05:18 AM »

Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct?
You need to have absolute space, if you are going to talk about the center of the universe, and this is where Newton's laws will apply. But if you are talking about Newtonian mechanics, then the earth cannot be geostationary because its rotation is proven by the oblate earth, the Foucault pendulum, and the reason why satellites are launched close to the equator and to the east.  On the other hand, if you say that there is no center in the universe, then it is a contradiction to say that the earth is the center of the universe.  So there really is no basis for geocentrism.

The oblate earth and Foucault pendulum are also explained in a geocentric model. There are some circumstances where the geocentric model is useful. I suspect it is easier to calculate a flight from Earth to Pluto from Earth rather than from the view point of the Sun. There is a basis for centrism, which is utility. I do not happen to know where the center of the universe is. Presumably it will be proximal to where the Big Bang occurred, depending on whether there was a bias in the ejection of mass and energy during this event. The terms geocentric and heliocentric are simply used to specify the frame of reference. The situation would be the same if we picked a spot at the edge of the universe somewhere.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #193 on: August 25, 2013, 06:33:27 AM »


Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct? That the question is not meaningless?

You already answered your question about the dark matter hypothesis. It is based on evidence that can be explained by non-light emitting matter that we cannot see from the planet earth. Do you really believe we should understand how the universe works at this point of time in our history?

The thing is even Hawking is saying that they picked a certain path based only on "modesty ". For me it doesn`t matter if the Earth is in the center of the universe or not, it is not so important from a religious perspective because i have the example of Thomas, i don`t need to put my hand in Christ`s wounds to believe in Him. But from a naturalistic point of view, such a thing will mean that someone created the universe. There is no other explanation. So based on observation one can say : From what we see it looks like: A -  we are in the center on the universe, or B : every point in the universe can be a center. So if you are honest you can`t chose a certain path saying that B must be true. You need to make different models based on A and B, put the both ideas into competition and compare them with the evidence.
Of course we need to understand how the universe works. But when we exclude A from the beginning based only on our antitheism, the least a religious person can do is to have doubts about their model of universe.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #194 on: August 25, 2013, 07:03:56 AM »

The oblate earth and Foucault pendulum are also explained in a geocentric model.

A proof by assertion which I don't believe.

Quote
There are some circumstances where the geocentric model is useful. I suspect it is easier to calculate a flight from Earth to Pluto from Earth rather than from the view point of the Sun.

You are incorrect. The vast majority of such a flight is going to consist of a partial orbit of the sun, or a series of such partial orbits, with (given the current way we do these things) a set of slingshot maneuvers around some of the major planets. It's going to be a lot harder to model this by superimposing the earth's orbital motion on the sun, the planets, and the vehicle as an epicycle; since doing this involves solving the three body problem (which can't be done, at least not yet) the simplest solution is simulation, and a simulation where the center of the system is the sun has the simplest mathematics.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,322



« Reply #195 on: August 25, 2013, 07:57:20 AM »

The thing is even Hawking is saying that they picked a certain path based only on "modesty ".

Regardless of what (you think) Hawking said, the fact is that this isn't true. There are really three key figures in this: Copernicus, Tycho, and Kepler. The first is important as the originator of the idea, but it is the third who is the most important figure in cementing the heliocentric model as superior, because he's the one who worked out elliptical orbits. You have to understand how the Ptolemaic model worked to appreciate the development. Ptolemy, being a man of his time, insisted that the motion had to be circular; but astronomers could already see that simple circles around the earth didn't give accurate predictions of position (especially the phenomenon of retrograde motion). So they imposed secondary circles called epicycles, so that (for instance) Mars orbited around around a point on Mars's primary circular orbit. This got them closer, but it was still imprecise, and led to adding more epicycles on the epicycles. So along came Tycho, who was a very good astronomer with a commitment to the Ptolemaic model. And he started messing with the epicycles, and eventually heads off to a model where the primary epicycle for each planet is a duplicate of the sun's principle orbit, with each planet's location on those epicycles in correspondence to the sun's position. In other words, he's simply taken the Copernican model and put the fixed point at the earth instead of the sun.

That is really the only point at which there is still something of an arbitrary choice between the two models, because Kepler's observation gets rid of the epicycles and the circular motion which were the chief cause of the difficulty. He instead not only worked out elliptical orbits, but came up with a very simple formula for the motion along those orbits. Each such ellipse has two foci, and the body being orbited sits at the one of those foci. For the moon, that point is where the earth rests; for the planets, it is where the sun sits. You can of course make a hybrid model like Tycho's final version, but it's a model in which only the sun and the moon are geocentric, and all the other planets are heliocentric; in any case this model was so much more accurate and so much simpler that it killed the Ptolemaic model completely. The discovery of the Galilean moons of Jupiter pushed this further along since it was obvious that whatever model you came up with had to have them effectively orbiting Jupiter; a contrived orbit of earth was outlandishly complicated in comparison.

Newton's theories of gravitation and motion explained why Kepler's laws worked, as well as getting rid of almost all the rest of the error (there's another small correction arising from relativistic effects). You cannot make geocentrism work in Newton's system; you have to come with an extremely contrived mess in which the earth's motion, and only that motion, follows a different set of rules. The math quickly becomes too complicated to take seriously, so nobody bothers; it's a lot easier to work from the observation that things work just fine if you assume that the earth follows the same laws as everything else. Throwing the relativistic effects into the mix only make it that much worse.

It's not just that a geocentric model is more elegant; it's that, in the solar system observed in isolation, a relativistic model based on Newtonian mechanics is far and away the simplest, and that alternate versions either don't work (e.g. the Ptolemaic system) or are simply Newtonian models with an exception for the earth. All the stuff Hawking is talking about is at a larger scale, galactic in the case of dark matter and intergalactic in the case of dark energy. They are being introduced because the apparent deviation from Newtonian/relativistic motion is most readily explained by keeping the model as is and introducing unseen objects and substances which act within that model to produce the observed deviations. Personally I think dark matter has a better chance of long-term survival as a real phenomenon, but in any case the whole thing is still something of a theoretical kluge that wants more verification. The expansion of the universe is a phenomenon which also needs explanation, but again things are pretty speculative; the notion that we have some idea of what set off the big bang can be rejected out of hand as the purest of speculation.

Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #196 on: August 25, 2013, 11:11:49 AM »

The oblate earth and Foucault pendulum are also explained in a geocentric model.

A proof by assertion which I don't believe.

Quote
There are some circumstances where the geocentric model is useful. I suspect it is easier to calculate a flight from Earth to Pluto from Earth rather than from the view point of the Sun.

You are incorrect. The vast majority of such a flight is going to consist of a partial orbit of the sun, or a series of such partial orbits, with (given the current way we do these things) a set of slingshot maneuvers around some of the major planets. It's going to be a lot harder to model this by superimposing the earth's orbital motion on the sun, the planets, and the vehicle as an epicycle; since doing this involves solving the three body problem (which can't be done, at least not yet) the simplest solution is simulation, and a simulation where the center of the system is the sun has the simplest mathematics.


In retrospect that wasn't a good example. I was writing from an 1950's SciFi movie space flight perspective and we do not have an inertia-less drive yet.

In regard to proof by assertion. I can provide links, but they are, more or less, dinner table-type discussions amongst physicists. And given the topic, this discussion is only justified as a source of amusement.

Let me know and I will hunt some of them down.

If earth were the sole entity in the universe, then there is no frame of reference to rotate against. Does it become an oblate spheroid? I am still seeking answers in regard to relativity.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #197 on: August 25, 2013, 12:11:04 PM »

Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct?
You need to have absolute space, if you are going to talk about the center of the universe, and this is where Newton's laws will apply. But if you are talking about Newtonian mechanics, then the earth cannot be geostationary because its rotation is proven by the oblate earth, the Foucault pendulum, and the reason why satellites are launched close to the equator and to the east.  On the other hand, if you say that there is no center in the universe, then it is a contradiction to say that the earth is the center of the universe.  So there really is no basis for geocentrism.

The oblate earth and Foucault pendulum are also explained in a geocentric model. There are some circumstances where the geocentric model is useful. I suspect it is easier to calculate a flight from Earth to Pluto from Earth rather than from the view point of the Sun. There is a basis for centrism, which is utility. I do not happen to know where the center of the universe is. Presumably it will be proximal to where the Big Bang occurred, depending on whether there was a bias in the ejection of mass and energy during this event. The terms geocentric and heliocentric are simply used to specify the frame of reference. The situation would be the same if we picked a spot at the edge of the universe somewhere.
The rotation of the earth changes measurably during an earthquake. An earthquake is relatively minor when compared to activity in the whole universe. If the earth were stationary, it would mean that this type of relatively minor activity on the small planet earth would influence the rotational motion of millions of other stars and galaxies.
Logged
davillas
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 89



« Reply #198 on: August 25, 2013, 02:25:41 PM »

The thing is even Hawking is saying that they picked a certain path based only on "modesty ".

Regardless of what (you think) Hawking said, the fact is that this isn't true. There are really three key figures in this: Copernicus, Tycho, and Kepler. The first is important as the originator of the idea, but it is the third who is the most important figure in cementing the heliocentric model as superior, because he's the one who worked out elliptical orbits. You have to understand how the Ptolemaic model worked to appreciate the development. Ptolemy, being a man of his time, insisted that the motion had to be circular; but astronomers could already see that simple circles around the earth didn't give accurate predictions of position (especially the phenomenon of retrograde motion). So they imposed secondary circles called epicycles, so that (for instance) Mars orbited around around a point on Mars's primary circular orbit. This got them closer, but it was still imprecise, and led to adding more epicycles on the epicycles. So along came Tycho, who was a very good astronomer with a commitment to the Ptolemaic model. And he started messing with the epicycles, and eventually heads off to a model where the primary epicycle for each planet is a duplicate of the sun's principle orbit, with each planet's location on those epicycles in correspondence to the sun's position. In other words, he's simply taken the Copernican model and put the fixed point at the earth instead of the sun.

That is really the only point at which there is still something of an arbitrary choice between the two models, because Kepler's observation gets rid of the epicycles and the circular motion which were the chief cause of the difficulty. He instead not only worked out elliptical orbits, but came up with a very simple formula for the motion along those orbits. Each such ellipse has two foci, and the body being orbited sits at the one of those foci. For the moon, that point is where the earth rests; for the planets, it is where the sun sits. You can of course make a hybrid model like Tycho's final version, but it's a model in which only the sun and the moon are geocentric, and all the other planets are heliocentric; in any case this model was so much more accurate and so much simpler that it killed the Ptolemaic model completely. The discovery of the Galilean moons of Jupiter pushed this further along since it was obvious that whatever model you came up with had to have them effectively orbiting Jupiter; a contrived orbit of earth was outlandishly complicated in comparison.

Newton's theories of gravitation and motion explained why Kepler's laws worked, as well as getting rid of almost all the rest of the error (there's another small correction arising from relativistic effects). You cannot make geocentrism work in Newton's system; you have to come with an extremely contrived mess in which the earth's motion, and only that motion, follows a different set of rules. The math quickly becomes too complicated to take seriously, so nobody bothers; it's a lot easier to work from the observation that things work just fine if you assume that the earth follows the same laws as everything else. Throwing the relativistic effects into the mix only make it that much worse.

It's not just that a geocentric model is more elegant; it's that, in the solar system observed in isolation, a relativistic model based on Newtonian mechanics is far and away the simplest, and that alternate versions either don't work (e.g. the Ptolemaic system) or are simply Newtonian models with an exception for the earth. All the stuff Hawking is talking about is at a larger scale, galactic in the case of dark matter and intergalactic in the case of dark energy. They are being introduced because the apparent deviation from Newtonian/relativistic motion is most readily explained by keeping the model as is and introducing unseen objects and substances which act within that model to produce the observed deviations. Personally I think dark matter has a better chance of long-term survival as a real phenomenon, but in any case the whole thing is still something of a theoretical kluge that wants more verification. The expansion of the universe is a phenomenon which also needs explanation, but again things are pretty speculative; the notion that we have some idea of what set off the big bang can be rejected out of hand as the purest of speculation.



Why do you write such a thing that " i think " Hawking said something ? You have the quote and probably have the book. What does it mean " We have no evidence for or against it " ? It can only mean that our model of universe is based on the assumption that any point of the universe can be considered the center. How can you understand something different ?
Most likely from what he writes it doesn`t mean that the other option is a geostationary earth. I don`t think even Ellis talked about this. At the scale of the universe, even if we consider the solar system or the Milky Way to be in the center it will mean the Earth is in the center. The fact remains, the model we have is based on the assumption that every point in the universe can be considered to be the center.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Online Online

Posts: 1,305


Katerina, my sister, dear beyond measure


« Reply #199 on: August 25, 2013, 02:38:53 PM »

Is there a good scientist that claims that the geocentric and heliocentric models are not both correct?
You need to have absolute space, if you are going to talk about the center of the universe, and this is where Newton's laws will apply. But if you are talking about Newtonian mechanics, then the earth cannot be geostationary because its rotation is proven by the oblate earth, the Foucault pendulum, and the reason why satellites are launched close to the equator and to the east.  On the other hand, if you say that there is no center in the universe, then it is a contradiction to say that the earth is the center of the universe.  So there really is no basis for geocentrism.

The oblate earth and Foucault pendulum are also explained in a geocentric model. There are some circumstances where the geocentric model is useful. I suspect it is easier to calculate a flight from Earth to Pluto from Earth rather than from the view point of the Sun. There is a basis for centrism, which is utility. I do not happen to know where the center of the universe is. Presumably it will be proximal to where the Big Bang occurred, depending on whether there was a bias in the ejection of mass and energy during this event. The terms geocentric and heliocentric are simply used to specify the frame of reference. The situation would be the same if we picked a spot at the edge of the universe somewhere.
The rotation of the earth changes measurably during an earthquake. An earthquake is relatively minor when compared to activity in the whole universe. If the earth were stationary, it would mean that this type of relatively minor activity on the small planet earth would influence the rotational motion of millions of other stars and galaxies.

This is similar to the merry-go-round story attributed to Albert Einstein. I think it applies here as well or I cannot figure out the distinction.

Hans Reichenbach, The Philosophy of Space and Time (1928):

"According to the general relativity of rotation, we can consider not only the earth but also any given rotating system, e.g., a merry-go-round, as the rest system. This conception, however, has absurd consequences. The horse, which in the usual interpretation pulls the merry-go-round, must in the second interpretation be able to put the earth, even the universe, in motion by means of treading, since now the merry-go-round remains at rest. How can the horse have the strength to do so?  This objection overlooks the fact that, in the relativistic conception, the rotation of the stars is due to a gravitational rotational field, and not to the horse. The latter has an entirely different task; it prevents the merry-go-round from following the rotational field and taking part in the general rotation. We see that even according to the relativistic interpretation, the horse has to perform a task determined by the mass of the merry-go-round and not by the mass of the stars. If an elevator glides down slowly and a fly inside crawls upward so that it remains at the same level relative to the building, it has to transport only its own mass – it does not have to “push down” the elevator."

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #200 on: August 25, 2013, 03:32:50 PM »

You think I'm a deconstructionist philosopher? That's rich!
Deconstruction involves the attempt to crack open and disturb the tranquillity of a given notion and this is what you are trying to do with gravity by creating the paralysis of a semantical  aporia.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12,030


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #201 on: August 25, 2013, 04:19:41 PM »

You think I'm a deconstructionist philosopher? That's rich!
Deconstruction involves the attempt to crack open and disturb the tranquillity of a given notion and this is what you are trying to do with gravity by creating the paralysis of a semantical  aporia.

We have a winner!
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,730


« Reply #202 on: August 26, 2013, 03:07:41 AM »

All the stuff Hawking is talking about is at a larger scale, galactic in the case of dark matter and intergalactic in the case of dark energy. They are being introduced because the apparent deviation from Newtonian/relativistic motion is most readily explained by keeping the model as is and introducing unseen objects and substances which act within that model to produce the observed deviations. Personally I think dark matter has a better chance of long-term survival as a real phenomenon, but in any case the whole thing is still something of a theoretical kluge that wants more verification. The expansion of the universe is a phenomenon which also needs explanation, but again things are pretty speculative; the notion that we have some idea of what set off the big bang can be rejected out of hand as the purest of speculation.


Dark energy is supposedly responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe. However, (if I am understanding his proposal and if not, I stand corrected), Christof Wetterich of the university of  Heidelberg proposed that the observed redshift is the result of the masses of electrons and protons being smaller in the past so that the frequencies of the characteristic atomic lines would be smaller thus accounting for the observed redshift. In such a scenario, the universe would not be expanding during the radiation and matter dominated periods. Instead, the Planck mass would grow, with the size of atoms shrinking correspondingly. He introduces a cosmon field whose potential is somehow responsible for the present dark energy. For details please see:
 arXiv:1303.6878 (A Universe without expansion).

Also see: http://arxiv.org/a/wetterich_c_1
Logged
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,228


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #203 on: August 26, 2013, 08:34:54 AM »

"In Newton's time and for two hundred years afterwards, physicists spoke of the action of gravity as 'action at a distance,' a  phrase that was accepted as a substitute for explaining the physical mechanism, much as we speak of spirits or ghosts to explain unseen phenomena. The inability to comprehend the mechanism of gravity accentuates the power of mathematics, for Newton's work was, as the title of his Mathematical Principles indicates, entirely mathematical. His work and the additions made by his successors not only provided the calculation of the planetary motions that transcended observations but also enabled astronomers to predict phenomena such as eclipses of the sun and moon to a fraction of a second...

"Contrary to popular belief, no one has ever explained the physical reality of the force of gravitation. It is a fiction suggested by the human ability to exert force. The greatest science fiction stories are in the science of physics. However, mathematical deductions from the quantitative law proved so effective that this procedure has been accepted as an integral part of ph