OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 02:14:53 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Heliocentrism/Geocentrism Issue  (Read 2893 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wainscottbl
Grand Duke of Louisville and all the Kentuckys
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,314


Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.


« on: November 23, 2013, 05:34:08 PM »

So in the Great Books class I am doing we did Ptolemy and in class discussed from an empirical rather than theological standpoint though the Great Books programme I am in is Catholic in it's nature. Still in the discussion religious understanding was allowed but the insrtrucor tried to avoid any theological discussion on the Ptolematic vs Copenican system and the idea of geocentrism vs heliocentrism. In short the idea was to try to say that, technically speaking both systems are possible since, according to empirical principals neither has been absolutely proven, though the general accepted system today is that the earth circles the sun. Whether the earth is the center of the universe and all that became a different matter which was discussed. Anyway it was interesting because most were heliocentrism who accepted modern science and its theories on the nature of the universe, except perhaps some of the things about the big bang. We did not really get into that.

As a former "trad Catholic" I used to be big on the geocentric model, though the Catholic Church did not even traditional absolutely insist on this, at least this is what Pope Leo XIII seems to say on the matter. Anyway now I think that both are possible. I do not think we have to accept the Bible literally on the matters of the universe and the earth being center and all that or not moving. Though it does make sense from a theological prospective I think that the earth would at least be the center of the universe if we are the only living beings in it. But maybe we are not--though I do not mean aliens per se, though I suppose that is possible. What do most of you guys think. Please try to make the discussion seriously and be polite if you do not agree with someone, such as if they believe in the possibility of aliens or are geocentrists.

I will state my own theories but I am not expert.

Since only God is eternal and spiritual in His essence, time and space are created by him, space being material, which is corporeal, and space related to that coming from the first principle of being or existence. Before we know about anything it exists--it's size, weight, etc, as Aristotle tells us in the "Categories". God created the universe, as we know it, as a certain, "time" though God exists outside of time. But in our human understanding "in the beginning" beans at the beginning of "time" just like there will be an end of "time". Space or material, that is atoms and all that comes form them, were created in time. Space is the universe. It could be expanding outward which would explain not only some sort of "big bang" but that God created material and that is proceeds from Him through time outward. Maybe it will stop expanding at the end of time. The great mystery is that if the universe or space is material then what is outside this expansion. Or if it is limited what is outside of the universe or space?

Is it material and how can there be anything outside of the material being? This is what the Greeks understood. Thus Christianity is folly to them as St. Paul says. But this is the mystery of God and the spirit. How anything can exist outside of time or how there can be an eternal and pure spirit. I think this question is a dangerous one that delves into the essence of God when we should only look to the uncreated energies.

But as to the universe itself--whether it is one size and does not expand, or whether it expands, whether the earth moves or the sun circles it, etc, what are your theories? I am not sure on the movement and center of the universe. I prefer the geocentric model as a Christian but am not a geocentrist because I think the heliocentric movement still goes with Christian theology. But it is all interesting stuff to think about, as long as we do not go so far as to become proud one way or the other, throwing out an intelligent creator or making Him careless like some of the Greeks did. Forgive the long post and if this sounds stupid but I am curious what you Orthodox Christians think and I am sure everybody has their own theory or opinion.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #1 on: November 23, 2013, 06:41:31 PM »

Personally I feel that the account in Joshua 10 is clear that the Sun orbits the Earth. The general objection that I hear to it is that the sun stood still only in the perspective of those who viewed it; i.e., that from the standpoint of the scientifically ignorant observers, it looked like the Sun stood still, but in reality it was the Earth that stood still.

I think this is problematic because it reduces Scriptural accounts of miracles and supernatural events to just what is apparent to the observer, rather than what actually occurred. To apply the viewpoint consistently you would end up with it only appearing that Jesus walked on water, it only appearing that Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, etc. Miracles would only be valid if they could be found in accord with current science, or their nature warped to fit therein.

It's true that a miracle would still be occurring even it was the Earth that stood still rather than the Sun, but we would be claiming the miracle to be a different event than what was written. It would only be in recent times that enlightened man would finally have discovered what was actually going on. Anyway, I feel compelled to hold to a geocentric viewpoint due to this.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #2 on: November 23, 2013, 11:44:33 PM »

So in the Great Books class I am doing we did Ptolemy and in class discussed from an empirical rather than theological standpoint though the Great Books programme I am in is Catholic in it's nature. Still in the discussion religious understanding was allowed but the insrtrucor tried to avoid any theological discussion on the Ptolematic vs Copenican system and the idea of geocentrism vs heliocentrism. In short the idea was to try to say that, technically speaking both systems are possible since, according to empirical principals neither has been absolutely proven, though the general accepted system today is that the earth circles the sun. Whether the earth is the center of the universe and all that became a different matter which was discussed. Anyway it was interesting because most were heliocentrism who accepted modern science and its theories on the nature of the universe, except perhaps some of the things about the big bang. We did not really get into that.

As a former "trad Catholic" I used to be big on the geocentric model, though the Catholic Church did not even traditional absolutely insist on this, at least this is what Pope Leo XIII seems to say on the matter. Anyway now I think that both are possible. I do not think we have to accept the Bible literally on the matters of the universe and the earth being center and all that or not moving. Though it does make sense from a theological prospective I think that the earth would at least be the center of the universe if we are the only living beings in it. But maybe we are not--though I do not mean aliens per se, though I suppose that is possible. What do most of you guys think. Please try to make the discussion seriously and be polite if you do not agree with someone, such as if they believe in the possibility of aliens or are geocentrists.

I will state my own theories but I am not expert.

Since only God is eternal and spiritual in His essence, time and space are created by him, space being material, which is corporeal, and space related to that coming from the first principle of being or existence. Before we know about anything it exists--it's size, weight, etc, as Aristotle tells us in the "Categories". God created the universe, as we know it, as a certain, "time" though God exists outside of time. But in our human understanding "in the beginning" beans at the beginning of "time" just like there will be an end of "time". Space or material, that is atoms and all that comes form them, were created in time. Space is the universe. It could be expanding outward which would explain not only some sort of "big bang" but that God created material and that is proceeds from Him through time outward. Maybe it will stop expanding at the end of time. The great mystery is that if the universe or space is material then what is outside this expansion. Or if it is limited what is outside of the universe or space?

Is it material and how can there be anything outside of the material being? This is what the Greeks understood. Thus Christianity is folly to them as St. Paul says. But this is the mystery of God and the spirit. How anything can exist outside of time or how there can be an eternal and pure spirit. I think this question is a dangerous one that delves into the essence of God when we should only look to the uncreated energies.

But as to the universe itself--whether it is one size and does not expand, or whether it expands, whether the earth moves or the sun circles it, etc, what are your theories? I am not sure on the movement and center of the universe. I prefer the geocentric model as a Christian but am not a geocentrist because I think the heliocentric movement still goes with Christian theology. But it is all interesting stuff to think about, as long as we do not go so far as to become proud one way or the other, throwing out an intelligent creator or making Him careless like some of the Greeks did. Forgive the long post and if this sounds stupid but I am curious what you Orthodox Christians think and I am sure everybody has their own theory or opinion.

Wainscottbl

For some perverse reason I cannot help but post on this topic due to my curiosity. Based on the responses to my previous posts here: you are still on solid ground if you believe that both the heliocentric and geocentric models are correct. You do not have to worry about this topic until you read a convincing proof against Einstein's theory of general relativity. 
Logged
Gisasargavak
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church - Holy See of Echmiadzin
Posts: 137


Առէ'ք, Կերէ'ք այս է մարմին իմ:


« Reply #3 on: November 24, 2013, 12:14:17 AM »

It's a non-issue. The Bible isn't a physics textbook, and anyone who uses it as such is uninformed at best and delusional at worst.
Logged
FormerCalvinist
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


« Reply #4 on: November 24, 2013, 12:18:11 AM »

The Bible isn't a physics textbook, and anyone who uses it as such is uninformed at best and delusional at worst.

Of course it isn't, but the fact that the Bible is not a physics textbook does not mean that it cannot have anything to say on matters related to physics.
Logged
MichaelofSN
What is even happening right now?
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 61



« Reply #5 on: November 24, 2013, 01:21:42 AM »

So in the Great Books class I am doing we did Ptolemy and in class discussed from an empirical rather than theological standpoint though the Great Books programme I am in is Catholic in it's nature. Still in the discussion religious understanding was allowed but the insrtrucor tried to avoid any theological discussion on the Ptolematic vs Copenican system and the idea of geocentrism vs heliocentrism. In short the idea was to try to say that, technically speaking both systems are possible since, according to empirical principals neither has been absolutely proven, though the general accepted system today is that the earth circles the sun. Whether the earth is the center of the universe and all that became a different matter which was discussed. Anyway it was interesting because most were heliocentrism who accepted modern science and its theories on the nature of the universe, except perhaps some of the things about the big bang. We did not really get into that.

Sounds like a cool class.

Quote
As a former "trad Catholic" I used to be big on the geocentric model, though the Catholic Church did not even traditional absolutely insist on this, at least this is what Pope Leo XIII seems to say on the matter. Anyway now I think that both are possible. I do not think we have to accept the Bible literally on the matters of the universe and the earth being center and all that or not moving. Though it does make sense from a theological prospective I think that the earth would at least be the center of the universe if we are the only living beings in it. But maybe we are not--though I do not mean aliens per se, though I suppose that is possible. What do most of you guys think. Please try to make the discussion seriously and be polite if you do not agree with someone, such as if they believe in the possibility of aliens or are geocentrists.

Your measure for our spatial location as "center of the universe" is based on the living beings.  Sure, I guess. We're the center of the "living-creature" universe.  We're (Earth) not spatially located at the center of the universe, but as long as your thoughts of our being the center are dependent upon the existence of living creatures, I suppose there's nothing wrong with saying that.

Quote
Since only God is eternal and spiritual in His essence, time and space are created by him, space being material, which is corporeal, and space related to that coming from the first principle of being or existence. Before we know about anything it exists--it's size, weight, etc, as Aristotle tells us in the "Categories". God created the universe, as we know it, as a certain, "time" though God exists outside of time. But in our human understanding "in the beginning" means at the beginning of "time" just like there will be an end of "time". Space or material, that is atoms and all that comes form them, were created in time. Space is the universe. It could be expanding outward which would explain not only some sort of "big bang" but that God created material and that is proceeds from Him through time outward. Maybe it will stop expanding at the end of time. The great mystery is that if the universe or space is material then what is outside this expansion. Or if it is limited what is outside of the universe or space?

This exact question is the reason I believe in God.  Between material objects is the vacuum of space.  Though a vacuum, it's not entirely empty of "stuff" (more on this later).  What exists outside of the expansion of matter is an unknowable thing, as of right now.  I believe that the "existence" of anything beyond the expansion of matter is relative.  I also believe that beyond the expansion, nothing *can* exist, except God... hence my belief.  We can't observe and measure my theory scientifically at present, but I take it on faith, because it seems to be the most logical explanation given what the human collective knows.

Quote
Is it material and how can there be anything outside of the material being? This is what the Greeks understood. Thus Christianity is folly to them as St. Paul says. But this is the mystery of God and the spirit. How anything can exist outside of time or how there can be an eternal and pure spirit. I think this question is a dangerous one that delves into the essence of God when we should only look to the uncreated energies.

Higgs boson particle... which is one of the many things that are outside of matter, yet exist... and in measurable ways.

Quote
But as to the universe itself--whether it is one size and does not expand, or whether it expands, whether the earth moves or the sun circles it, etc, what are your theories?
...
I am not sure on the movement and center of the universe. I prefer the geocentric model as a Christian but am not a geocentrist because I think the heliocentric movement still goes with Christian theology.

The heliocentric model was proven with aberration of light observation from man-made space craft sent beyond the Earth's orbit.  Despite the dependence of geocentrism on point of observation, we now know that the Earth orbits the Sun because we can view objects from a point of observation beyond the Earth's orbit.  There's more evidence for this than you can shake a stick at (deep space probes*, satellite photography, observations from the Moon's surface, etc.)

Quote
But it is all interesting stuff to think about, as long as we do not go so far as to become proud one way or the other, throwing out an intelligent creator or making Him careless like some of the Greeks did.

I agree, and I believe that since God is truth, that all truth is sacred.

*Deep space is space that is beyond the orbits of the Earth and Moon.
Logged

This jurisdiction: "Mmmmm hmmm!"
That jurisdiction: "Oh *know* she didn't!"
wainscottbl
Grand Duke of Louisville and all the Kentuckys
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,314


Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.


« Reply #6 on: November 24, 2013, 08:24:15 PM »

Yeah, I was just saying some prayers now and this greatness of the universe, the material one if you like, is so great we know only a speak of it. It seems to actually prove the nature of a God to me, putting aside the Trinity all the Christian thing. With atheists and agnostics I would just say it's important to start with the basics--the idea of a creator, a master, and first mover. The Divine Reason as the Stoics knew it. Not because I believe in the idea of the Stoics and their metaphysics but it does make things simple for one who has doubts, like an agnostic. The Epicurean idea is comforting because it teaches one not to fear death but to accept the material world as we know it and live virtuously. Though it does not embrace hedonism and offers the comfort of living according to the body because we have them and know them best by nature alone, it does create problems. And I think the Stoic philosophy is more acceptable to Christian spirituality, though like a pagan philosophies it is full of problems. But seeing how these pagans looked at the question of God and metaphysics is interesting. Really everybody fears death and what comes after, even the atheists I think. I think everybody believes in God at the hour of their death, even atheists! I think many atheists and agnostics embrace their philosophy because they simply look to the material universe and put aside the question of God because their idea of God as a cruel dictator as some Christians make him is corrupted. But the same was true of the pagans, which is why Socrates rejected the idea of the gods as commonly understood by the Greeks. He believed in the gods, but he also believed in a good, kind God which Aristotle later embraces in his Metaphysics. Aristotle pretty much says the only king of God there can be is a good, infinite one. Nothing else makes sense and no God makes no sense because everything must come from something but we cannot go back and back from cause to cause for eternity because this makes no sense. Which is how Aquinas proves God.

But when it comes to the material world--the universe I mean--that becomes a mystery, even to modern science. To think we have not even seen a speck of the universe so to speak. There must be a God. And if He created it and leaves it to itself as some believe then I would say this God can go removed. But this makes no sense because then we might as well be murderers and thieves, psychopaths with no conscience since God is like this. So God must be good, infinitely so in His essence, something we cannot understand.

wainscottbl,

I deleted a phrase from your post due to a violation of forum rules:

"Except for "BS," all acronyms (STFU, WTF, etc.), abbreviations (F-off, etc.), and semi-censored versions (F**K, BULLS**T, etc.) of forbidden words are also forbidden."

Please refer to the Rules page, located at top left of the page, and familiarize yourself with them.  Further violations will not be treated as the first time.  If you have any questions, please PM me.

Mor Ephrem, moderator.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 10:26:18 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
MichaelofSN
What is even happening right now?
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 61



« Reply #7 on: November 24, 2013, 08:41:38 PM »

There must be a God. And if He created it and leaves it to itself as some believe then I would say this God can go removed.

 Shocked

We could have done without all of that.

Edited quote.  Mor.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 10:27:16 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

This jurisdiction: "Mmmmm hmmm!"
That jurisdiction: "Oh *know* she didn't!"
wainscottbl
Grand Duke of Louisville and all the Kentuckys
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,314


Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.


« Reply #8 on: November 24, 2013, 10:19:16 PM »

There must be a God. And if He created it and leaves it to itself as some believe then I would say this God can go removed.

 Shocked

We could have done without all of that.

Yeah, maybe. But I was trying to make a point. Maybe the crudeness was not the way to put it, but I did use stars to avoid trouble. My point is if God created everything and then left it to be, as some has proposed, that would make Him worse than a tyrant. Some, notably the Deist, believe this, but we see what sort of problems this creates. I suppose love of our fellow man could stop us from becoming psychopaths and living for our own pleasure, but if God were just creating the world and leaving it to be that would perhaps make doing good a matter of profit. So I could be good if I profited me in some way, like I made money from it, but if I was going to lose money or something I could just kill whoever got in my way or steal. The whole theory of a Creator making the universe and man and then leaving it to itself is interesting perhaps, but if one thinks about it is worse than the idea of a God who makes man to just enjoy watching them burn in hell for all eternity for doing evil. At least that God is doing it because the person did wrong and not just leaving little children to be molested and doing nothing about it. Our God may let the wicked molest children but only because He sees the good in the child molester, something hard for us to see. He sees their nature and possibilities. That and He gives them a complete free will. And the hell that they will suffer for eternity if they do not repent is of their own creation. God wishes no one, even Hitler, to suffer for all eternity. But the intelligence and goodness with which He created the universe and the nature of that universe and how it works, from the heavens and their actions to the actions of men from murder to rape, may make us wonder, but we trust in God. And that is the hard part. To not be an atheist or hate God as some do because of the evil that happens.

Edited quote.  Mor.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 10:28:37 PM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,783



« Reply #9 on: November 24, 2013, 10:28:22 PM »

Deism doesn't make sense for me as a philosophical explanation of the origin of the Universe.

Here's my problem: We do something because we have a reason to. There's an intention behind it.

If the Universe was created by the Deist god, what on earth would his intention be?

If he created the Universe, but didn't really care that he did, why did he do it in the first place? Is the Deist god making scatter-brained decisions?

It seems to me that the Theist God creates the Universe with the presupposition that, He cares for the Universe He creates, and therefore has the intention to create and maintain it.

« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 10:31:54 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,287


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2013, 10:42:00 PM »

Deism doesn't make sense for me as a philosophical explanation of the origin of the Universe.

Here's my problem: We do something because we have a reason to. There's an intention behind it.

If the Universe was created by the Deist god, what on earth would his intention be?

If he created the Universe, but didn't really care that he did, why did he do it in the first place? Is the Deist god making scatter-brained decisions?

It seems to me that the Theist God creates the Universe with the presupposition that, He cares for the Universe He creates, and therefore has the intention to create and maintain it.


One could argue that the Deist God (or "Deos", for short) cares for the universe -- he just doesn't break the laws he has set up for the universe. He operates within those laws,  unnoticeable to those looking for disruptions in the natural order. Perhaps that in itself is a miracle: divine intervention without breaking the law.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
MichaelofSN
What is even happening right now?
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOARCH
Posts: 61



« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2013, 10:42:17 PM »

Deism doesn't make sense for me as a philosophical explanation of the origin of the Universe.

Here's my problem: We do something because we have a reason to. There's an intention behind it.

If the Universe was created by the Deist god, what on earth would his intention be?

This pun made me "lol".

Quote
If he created the Universe, but didn't really care that he did, why did he do it in the first place? Is the Deist god making scatter-brained decisions?

I was taught that we don't anthropomorphise God in this way when dealing with mystery, because it only leads to further confusion.  IE - we don't assume we can even comprehend God's intentions because we can't know Him by His essence and are left without a fundamental understanding of God within the context of His existence.

Quote
It seems to me that the Theist God creates the Universe with the presupposition that, He cares for the Universe He creates, and therefore has the intention to create and maintain it.

This meets formal logic and mystery right in the middle ground.  Very well put!
Logged

This jurisdiction: "Mmmmm hmmm!"
That jurisdiction: "Oh *know* she didn't!"
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,193


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2013, 10:47:33 PM »

One could argue that the Deist God (or "Deos", for short) cares for the universe -- he just doesn't break the laws he has set up for the universe. He operates within those laws,  unnoticeable to those looking for disruptions in the natural order. Perhaps that in itself is a miracle: divine intervention without breaking the law.

But this would not be consistent with Orthodox teaching. God is not subservient to the laws of nature He created. After all, He made it possible for a virgin to conceive, and, even more amazingly, her Child was God Himself:

As a virgin you gave birth, and a virgin you remained by nature, your womb giving birth painlessly. For He who was born of you renewed the laws of nature, since when God wills it, nature’s order is overthrown. (Theotokion, Great Canon of St Andrew of Crete)
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 2,783



« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2013, 10:56:17 PM »

Deism doesn't make sense for me as a philosophical explanation of the origin of the Universe.

Here's my problem: We do something because we have a reason to. There's an intention behind it.

If the Universe was created by the Deist god, what on earth would his intention be?

If he created the Universe, but didn't really care that he did, why did he do it in the first place? Is the Deist god making scatter-brained decisions?

It seems to me that the Theist God creates the Universe with the presupposition that, He cares for the Universe He creates, and therefore has the intention to create and maintain it.


One could argue that the Deist God (or "Deos", for short) cares for the universe -- he just doesn't break the laws he has set up for the universe. He operates within those laws,  unnoticeable to those looking for disruptions in the natural order. Perhaps that in itself is a miracle: divine intervention without breaking the law.

My understanding of Deism is that Deus doesn't act in the Universe in anyway whatsoever.
Logged

"[The Lord] shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide for strong nations far away; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4, Micah 4:3)
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,768


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2013, 11:48:32 PM »

In short the idea was to try to say that, technically speaking both systems are possible since, according to empirical principals neither has been absolutely proven, though the general accepted system today is that the earth circles the sun.
What is your category for proof, and how has heliocentrism fallen short?
« Last Edit: November 24, 2013, 11:48:55 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
melkite
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic Church
Posts: 25



« Reply #15 on: November 27, 2013, 08:00:56 PM »

I think heliocentrism is easily observable, as we know what all the other planets in the solar system orbit.  If all the other planets orbit the sun rather than the earth, it wouldn't make much sense that the sun orbits the earth, even if it is possible from the perspective of relativity.  We can now see that other planets are orbiting their stars, so if the sun were to orbit the earth, we would be an anomaly.  We can also see other galaxies and see that everything in a galaxy (at least spiral ones) appear to be orbiting a gravitational center.  So it appears to be the order of the universe that small things revolve around bigger things.  If something gravitationally bigger than us (Jupiter) is orbiting the sun, not us, then it requires a complete abandonment of reason and empirical evidence to postulate the sun orbits the earth rather than the earth orbiting the sun.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,193


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #16 on: November 27, 2013, 11:50:06 PM »

If something gravitationally bigger than us (Jupiter) is orbiting the sun, not us, then it requires a complete abandonment of reason and empirical evidence to postulate the sun orbits the earth rather than the earth orbiting the sun.

THIS! A perfect refutation of geocentrism. Thank you!
Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,636



« Reply #17 on: November 27, 2013, 11:59:58 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #18 on: November 28, 2013, 01:00:03 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.
ZealousZeal (is the second capital Z required? just asking).

I do not question heliocentrism. I do question heliocentrismcentrism. I find myself in the position of stating that just because one point of view is valid does not mean that the opposite point of view is not valid. I am not going to join the heliocentrism-only bandwagon unless there is some paper the heliocentrism-only people can cite that the geocentric view is not correct, as well. I have yet to get a response to this simple request (and as you can see it is a far cry from the responses on the evolution thread). The bottom line is that if geocentrism is wrong then Einstein's theory of General Relativity (as he perceived it) is also wrong.

Do you think that I am being too pedantic? I have been told that I am too pedantic (at least in the past).

Is there any one here that will come to my defense on this. I doubt it. It really is not important, because there is no dichotomy, there is really no issue to debate.

I hope this helps clarify.

Logged
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,636



« Reply #19 on: November 28, 2013, 01:11:27 AM »

ZealousZeal (is the second capital Z required? just asking).

ZZ is fine and shorter.  Smiley

Quote
I do not question heliocentrism. I do question heliocentrismcentrism. I find myself in the position of stating that just because one point of view is valid does not mean that the opposite point of view is not valid. I am not going to join the heliocentrism-only bandwagon unless there is some paper the heliocentrism-only people can cite that the geocentric view is not correct, as well. I have yet to get a response to this simple request (and as you can see it is a far cry from the responses on the evolution thread). The bottom line is that if geocentrism is wrong then Einstein's theory of General Relativity (as he perceived it) is also wrong.

Do you think that I am being too pedantic? I have been told that I am too pedantic (at least in the past).

Is there any one here that will come to my defense on this. I doubt it. It really is not important, because there is no dichotomy, there is really no issue to debate.

I hope this helps clarify.

It helps clarify your thoughts which are certainly more nuanced than what I was perceiving from this thread generally. I also don't think you're being too pedantic, but I honestly can't contribute anything meaningful to the discussion or deal with the substance of your post- it is way over my head. I am no expert on Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Physics was not my cup of tea.  Wink
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #20 on: November 28, 2013, 01:29:56 AM »

Why is this even an issue? The earth is tiny, the Sun is huge. End of conversation.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #21 on: November 28, 2013, 02:08:46 AM »

Why is this even an issue? The earth is tiny, the Sun is huge. End of conversation.

You are just not pedantic enough. Time to sleep.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #22 on: March 22, 2014, 12:26:02 AM »

As a Neo-Tychonian Geocentrist, I feel compelled to resurrect this thread to comment.

In the Tychonian model, the earth and sun are inverse to the Copernican heliocentric model, but with all other planets in the system orbiting the sun with elliptical (Keplerian) orbits for all movement.  Only the relative points of reference as the sun and earth are inverse.

Space is "something" rather than "nothing", and is the firmament of luminiferous aether with a postulated Planck density of 10 (93).  The firmament is orbiting the earth, thus carrying the fixed stars around it as they have their movement in their local systems.  The earth is fixed and does not orbit or rotate on its axis.  We are not hurtling through space while spinning at ~800mph (pending latitude).  And the universe is exponentially smaller than is declared.

Science (falsely so called) has never engaged in anything but a few nominal and rudimentary experiments for this quandry.  It cannot be empirically proven whether the sun or earth is the fixed frame of reference, so I'm sticking with the inspired text (and traditional para-biblical 1Enoch, etc.).

I have my completely fire-retardant suit on, so I'm impervious to condescension and the like.

« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:27:47 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 4,063



« Reply #23 on: March 22, 2014, 12:46:25 AM »

Oh this is interesting. I've seen similar threads on CAF and the like before, and while everything goes over my head, it makes me realize how much of my worldview I take for granted when I can't even defend something viewed as commonsense.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 12:46:48 AM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2014, 01:07:46 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2014, 09:39:40 AM »

Oh this is interesting. I've seen similar threads on CAF and the like before, and while everything goes over my head, it makes me realize how much of my worldview I take for granted when I can't even defend something viewed as commonsense.

This really is the point.  Modern culture is programmed to literally have faith in the "priesthood" of science (gnosis) relative to all these postulates and hypostheses passed off as theories.  At the core is every ancient dualistic and esoteric religion.  The foundations aren't "secular" opposing "sacred religion"; the very pillars of Scientific Naturalism are ancient religion opposing the Christian Faith while all dressed up in their Sunday-best of (alleged) empiricism.

Empiricism is self-impugning and self-refuting, and is a fundamental demonstration of Rationalism.  It's the use of Rationalism and Empiricism to first establish Pluralism and Relativism as the antithesis for thesis to create synthesis, which is ultimately another declared objective truth than that which is established.  It's Hegelian Dialectic in its most diabolical form to undermine and supplant the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the true Christian fath.

After all, if the masses can be brainwashed from elementary school into advocating and defending the synthesis over the thesis of Christainity, the battle is already largely won in that regard.

I have NO faith in the scientific priesthood of Kabbalist Atheists and their alleged empiricism.  And that doesn't have to mean I disregard a multitude of lesser valid considerations than Cosmological formulaics.  As a believer, I am to discern all things.  I don't have to embrace Kabbalah, Taoism, Theurgy, Hermeticism, and sub-set Gnosticism to pick and choose from the antichrist offerings of propagandized indoctrination into this modern culture-sculpting through false ideologies of technology, etc.

Joshua, according to the Holy Spirit's authorship, commanded the SUN to stand still, and both the sun and the moon did exactly that.  The shadow on the sundial moved back the exact number of degrees recorded in Isaiah by the God-breathed record of inspired canon.  Others can take a lower view of Holy Spirit-breathed text through faithful servants as prophets and Apostles, but my faith cometh by hearing the Rhema, NOT the utterances and contrived machinations of a false priesthood of "gnosis".  I have my faith toward God.

Foucault's Pendulum and Michelson-Morley are beyond laughable as "empirical proofs" for heliocentrism.  And don't even get me started on all the band-aids constantly required for Einstein's General/Special Theories of Relativity.

If I were a Heliocentrist, I'd ask myself... WHY have I believed the bare assertions I've been told since grade school?  It will never be because one ever considered the matter for oneself, and that can now never be done without bias and prejudice as extreme cognitive dissonance and prelest.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.  Heliocentrism is not of faith.  Or at least not faith in the only true and ever-living God of all creation.  It could only be faith in another priesthood, and there is only one... the royal priesthood who faithfully canonized the God-breathed text.  My High Priest is not the impersonal one of Empricism.  It's Jesus Christ the Righteous, my God and Savior.  And the Holy Spirit breathed the truth in the text.

My worldview doesn't come from this world.  I walk by the faith OF the Son of God, not a false faith in man's pitiful self-endeavors in science falsely so-called. Cool
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 09:45:07 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #26 on: March 22, 2014, 02:41:48 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.

Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #27 on: March 22, 2014, 03:18:50 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.

Run it by me.  It seems you take a non-position.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #28 on: March 22, 2014, 03:24:28 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.
ZealousZeal (is the second capital Z required? just asking).

I do not question heliocentrism. I do question heliocentrismcentrism. I find myself in the position of stating that just because one point of view is valid does not mean that the opposite point of view is not valid. I am not going to join the heliocentrism-only bandwagon unless there is some paper the heliocentrism-only people can cite that the geocentric view is not correct, as well. I have yet to get a response to this simple request (and as you can see it is a far cry from the responses on the evolution thread). The bottom line is that if geocentrism is wrong then Einstein's theory of General Relativity (as he perceived it) is also wrong.

Do you think that I am being too pedantic? I have been told that I am too pedantic (at least in the past).

Is there any one here that will come to my defense on this. I doubt it. It really is not important, because there is no dichotomy, there is really no issue to debate.

I hope this helps clarify.

I might come to your defense if I had a better understanding of what you're proposing as a position.

Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 03:25:06 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #29 on: March 22, 2014, 03:47:16 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #30 on: March 22, 2014, 03:56:58 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

I do/did understand where you are coming from in regard to special relativity. This was never the source of my curiosity.

Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #31 on: March 22, 2014, 04:07:53 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.
Logged
wainscottbl
Grand Duke of Louisville and all the Kentuckys
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,314


Ave, gratia plena, Dominus tecum.


« Reply #32 on: March 22, 2014, 05:06:36 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

Yes, I suppose it is but I use to do so. That the heavens circle the earth was a philosophical idea that God is in control of everything. Not that I did not deny that God set the heaven emotions with certain laws, thus not the direct cause of every shooting start, but rather the author of every movement by proviidence. But now I say it does not matter. Well it does in the end--since one or the other is true. But I do not have to be a geocentrist to believe in divine creation. Especially because a friend pointed out that all the glory given to mathematics over so called useless philosophy in modern education, mathematics helps to show there is order to the universe. There's an idea of sacred geometry and so forth.

My real question is

1. Is the cosmos infinite matter or finite matter?
2. If finite it would seem to be a sphere. But then is it expanding in time, first from Creation "in the beginning" or does it end at a certain point?
3. If it ends at a certain point then there must be something, some thing, beyond it of matter, so matter seems to be infinite. Matter seems to be infinite like man is eternal, not infinite without beginning, being created from nothing, but infinite from the beginning.
4. The reason seems to be proven by the rules of Euclid. If material space can end then "what" is beyond it? Is it still not space? God created the universe out of nothing. Could not an infinite God of pure spirit create an infinite material universe? Would he not have to? Not because God is governed by any rules but rather God is the rule in essence. Man's material being he makes finite and God become a finite man materially, having breadth, depth, width and limited dimensions like us. Only God is infinite spirit because his intellect searches everywhere, and the angels have an intellect that can make them present in many places. Angels in themselves have no material so that as it is said there is no limit to the number of angels that can stand on the top of a pin. They don't stand on pins or beside us even, but direct their intellect towards us. They are spirituals substances, but if humans see them that is accidental, like the Divine Word is present in the Eucharist, though we see bread and wine.
Logged

"Any rational society would have either killed me or put me to some good use." -Hannibal Lecter

"First principles...to each particular thing ask what is it in and of itself. What is its nature?" --Hannibal Lecter
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #33 on: March 22, 2014, 06:31:49 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

Okay... interesting, and I concur.  How so (geo star-watching)?  At least the moon's orbit is as literally observed rather than in reverse.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #34 on: March 22, 2014, 06:34:54 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

You are referring to the Tychonian model (rather than the obsolete Ptolemaic model), right?
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #35 on: March 22, 2014, 06:35:41 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

You actually can't know that.  And relativity is bunk.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #36 on: March 22, 2014, 07:39:00 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

You are referring to the Tychonian model (rather than the obsolete Ptolemaic model), right?

I am not thinking about any model. I am thinking about the Andromeda galaxy which is the farthest thing I have seen with my 6 inch reflector (not much to look at without long camera exposures) traveling at tremendous speeds around earth 2.5 million years ago and then I start thinking about how far away it was 2.5 million years ago, so how should I adjust its velocity, and things like that. Nothing important, just idle thoughts reflecting on how complicated the system is.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #37 on: March 22, 2014, 08:02:30 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

You are referring to the Tychonian model (rather than the obsolete Ptolemaic model), right?

I am not thinking about any model. I am thinking about the Andromeda galaxy which is the farthest thing I have seen with my 6 inch reflector (not much to look at without long camera exposures) traveling at tremendous speeds around earth 2.5 million years ago and then I start thinking about how far away it was 2.5 million years ago, so how should I adjust its velocity, and things like that. Nothing important, just idle thoughts reflecting on how complicated the system is.

I see.  But it's actually not Andromeda or any other of the heavenly bodies that are traveling around the earth.  They're in the aether of space, which is what is rotating around the earth system.  Space is the firmament.

Picture a fixed ball (earth) in a giant tub of water, with other balls (all heavenly bodies) in the water while it is churned and moving around the fixed ball at the center.  The balls in the water aren't moving, except maybe in localized minimal movement not relative to the water's primary circulation movement.

Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light around the earth because none of those bodies are moving as they're carried by the aether's momentum.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2014, 08:33:22 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #38 on: March 22, 2014, 10:16:03 PM »


Are you simply saying there is no proof against geocentrism, so it makes the issue null until there is such a proof?

This is more or less correct for both perspectives. Although, watching the stars at night with a geocentric viewpoint is mind boggling.

You are referring to the Tychonian model (rather than the obsolete Ptolemaic model), right?

I am not thinking about any model. I am thinking about the Andromeda galaxy which is the farthest thing I have seen with my 6 inch reflector (not much to look at without long camera exposures) traveling at tremendous speeds around earth 2.5 million years ago and then I start thinking about how far away it was 2.5 million years ago, so how should I adjust its velocity, and things like that. Nothing important, just idle thoughts reflecting on how complicated the system is.

I see.  But it's actually not Andromeda or any other of the heavenly bodies that are traveling around the earth.  They're in the aether of space, which is what is rotating around the earth system.  Space is the firmament.

Picture a fixed ball (earth) in a giant tub of water, with other balls (all heavenly bodies) in the water while it is churned and moving around the fixed ball at the center.  The balls in the water aren't moving, except maybe in localized minimal movement not relative to the water's primary circulation movement.

Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light around the earth because none of those bodies are moving as they're carried by the aether's momentum.

This is not what I learned.
This is what I learned:
Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
The speed of light is not fixed under general relativity.

Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #39 on: March 23, 2014, 01:25:51 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

I do/did understand where you are coming from in regard to special relativity. This was never the source of my curiosity.



That explanation was for the benefit of those who held the opinion that relativity changed this issue somehow (of whom I know there are some in this thread); it wasn't aimed at you in particular.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #40 on: March 23, 2014, 01:31:13 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

You actually can't know that.  And relativity is bunk.

What cant I actually know? And LOL OK.
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,424



« Reply #41 on: March 23, 2014, 01:36:20 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

I do/did understand where you are coming from in regard to special relativity. This was never the source of my curiosity.



That explanation was for the benefit of those who held the opinion that relativity changed this issue somehow (of whom I know there are some in this thread); it wasn't aimed at you in particular.

I suspected this but I wasn't sure and there is another thread I am tiptoeing through that is similar.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #42 on: March 23, 2014, 10:56:48 PM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

You actually can't know that.  And relativity is bunk.

What cant I actually know? And LOL OK.

You can't know which orbits which of the earth and the sun.
Logged
OrthoNoob
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 993



« Reply #43 on: March 24, 2014, 12:13:40 AM »

Tfw people try to use relativity to defend geocentrism because they overlooked (or didn't understand) the word 'inertial'.

What is Tfw? Just curious.

I think if people took my stand there will be much less wasted time discussing this non-issue.



'Tfw' stands for 'that feel[feeling] when'. It's used similarly to 'that awkward moment'.

To further explicate my statement above, special relativity does not assert the equality of all reference frames. It asserts the equality of all inertial reference frames. However, any time an object is in orbit, it's constantly accelerating (by the definition of circular or elliptical motion) and therefore is not in an inertial reference frame. The earth orbits the sun. Period. Relativity doesn't change that.

You actually can't know that.  And relativity is bunk.

What cant I actually know? And LOL OK.

You can't know which orbits which of the earth and the sun.

Um...yes, I can. The earth orbits the sun. This is a fact. If this fact were not true, nothing that depends on satellites would work.

Unless you're claiming that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to deceive us about how cell phones work...?
Logged

http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,193


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #44 on: March 24, 2014, 12:28:36 AM »

Unless you're claiming that there is a global Jewish conspiracy to deceive us about how cell phones work...?

Oy, did you have to say that?  Tongue Tongue
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.173 seconds with 71 queries.