OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 17, 2014, 11:56:11 PM *
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 3280 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
wainscottbl
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,488


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« 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

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
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: 1,522



« 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
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,488


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« 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

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
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
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,488


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« 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

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
xOrthodox4Christx
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,182



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,567


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: 10,705


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: 3,182



« 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

"Rationalists are admirable beings, rationalism is a hideous monster when it claims for itself omnipotence. Attribution of omnipotence to reason is as bad a piece of idolatry as is worship of stock and stone, believing it to be God." (Mahatma Gandhi)
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,885


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: 10,705


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: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« 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: 1,522



« 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: 2,696


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« 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: 920


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: 1,522



« 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: Non-Chalcedonian Chalcedonian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,374



« 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
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 1,522



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 1,522



« 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: 1,522



« 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
By the grace of God, King of the South, Grand Duke of Louisville, Bardstown, Lexington and all the Kentuckys, Prince of Alaska, East Ukraine, Crimea and Wallachia
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Somewhere between Rome and Constantinople (Roman Catholic investigating Eastern Orthodoxy)
Posts: 1,488


How's this avatar, Mor? An angel! Profane not!


« 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

Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that "in mathematics goodness does not exist." It is a rather great quote to show to any math teacher when they tell you how important math is. Give them a riddle: I am not tall, I am not short, nor big nor take up any space but simply am. I have no name but I am.
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: 1,522



« 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: 1,522



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 1,522



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« 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: 10,705


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
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #45 on: March 24, 2014, 12:33:40 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

Well, PneumaPsucheSoma has already claimed heliocentrism is a fraud propounded by 'Kabbalist atheists' so I'm not really the one who brought up the Jewish Question.
Logged

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

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #46 on: March 24, 2014, 02:45:14 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #47 on: March 24, 2014, 02:51:42 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Yes, that is one of the issues. Also, this bit about 'luminiferous æther' is slightly troubling.
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 #48 on: March 24, 2014, 07:11:01 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...?

Bare assertion, which is always the alleged "proof".  Perhaps you should explore the Neo-Tychonian view.  I doubt you have, preferring conceptual inference, etc.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #49 on: March 24, 2014, 07:12:27 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Kinematics and dynamics must be considered separately.

And which Geocentricity model are you referring to?  Likely the obsolete Ptolemaic.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2014, 07:22:04 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #50 on: March 24, 2014, 07:15:36 AM »

The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces involved.

Yes, that is one of the issues. Also, this bit about 'luminiferous æther' is slightly troubling.

I can see you haven't spent any time actually exploring the Neo-Tychonian Geocentric model.  And you've not presented any evidence whatsoever, just speculative inference and conceptual declaration.

You or anyone else is free to present actual empirical evidence that addresses the kinematic and dynamics to prove heliocentricity.  Until then, I am unconvinced.  It's a coin flip, and scripture more than makes the call for me.  You may choose to take a lower level of inspiration for scripture, but I do not.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #51 on: March 24, 2014, 07:20:16 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

Well, PneumaPsucheSoma has already claimed heliocentrism is a fraud propounded by 'Kabbalist atheists' so I'm not really the one who brought up the Jewish Question.

One needn't be a Kabbalist to embrace the infused foundation of such for the religion of Humanism through Empiricism, etc.  And it doesn't take much to wager you're likely a Theistic Evolutionist as well.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #52 on: March 24, 2014, 07:38:35 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #53 on: March 25, 2014, 12:03:54 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #54 on: March 25, 2014, 12:24:56 AM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #55 on: March 25, 2014, 01:50:32 PM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.
Logged
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #56 on: March 25, 2014, 03:56:38 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,934



« Reply #57 on: March 25, 2014, 04:42:39 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #58 on: March 25, 2014, 04:48:14 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,934



« Reply #59 on: March 25, 2014, 04:51:08 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.  In practicality, this means that there is a broad approach to allowing people from the Eastern Orthodox "Majority", the Eastern Orthodox "Traditionalists", and the Oriental Orthodox "Non-Chalcedonians" to post on topics relating to Orthodoxy.  It should be emphasized that it is the policy of this site that no one is required to affirm that any of the other groups are canonical or Orthodox, but rather the purpose of the broad approach is to allow broad discussion on topics that in academic discourse are labeled "Orthodox studies."




I guess your version of the 'Purpose and Rules' has an added line that mine lacks...


'At all times, these topics must conform to the Orthonorm standards of Entertainment Value.'


Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,502



« Reply #60 on: March 25, 2014, 04:57:36 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.


Statements of purpose are hardly ever true. And this one is as off as any. Look at what is discussed here. Hang around a bit. Near my post count and time here and knowledge of the folks who post and who just lurk here, then get back to me.

This place like any other serves primarily as a means of entertainment for those who visit. Look at all the top posters, the top 15 or so make up a lot of the posts here. Every one of them is posting for kicks.

Some of us are more open about it. And some of us are able to be truly serious when the need arises, the rest live in a netherworld never posting anything of either interest or import.

Boardz are as boardz do and this one is more than a little bored lately. But hey, new folks stirring up a threads, so there's that.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 04:58:11 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,934



« Reply #61 on: March 25, 2014, 05:03:11 PM »

What's with this place lately? At least the post count won't the least ever in two years. Without Shiny, this place has devolved into a near abyss of anything of interest. TBF, Tri and JMichael moving their affair offline has hurt the post count just as much.

What thread will * start tomorrow? Shucks, The Sermon on the Mount? Now What?


So start a thread of interest.  It's not as if this place exists just to entertain you....

Perhaps, but if it not entertaining me it isn't living up to its purpose.


To be clear, this site exists as an Orthodox Forum where people who identify themselves as Orthodox are given a place to discuss things pertinent to the Orthodox Faith.


Statements of purpose are hardly ever true. And this one is as off as any. Look at what is discussed here. Hang around a bit. Near my post count and time here and knowledge of the folks who post and who just lurk here, then get back to me.

This place like any other serves primarily as a means of entertainment for those who visit. Look at all the top posters, the top 15 or so make up a lot of the posts here. Every one of them is posting for kicks.

Some of us are more open about it. And some of us are able to be truly serious when the need arises, the rest live in a netherworld never posting anything of either interest or import.

Boardz are as boardz do and this one is more than a little bored lately. But hey, new folks stirring up a threads, so there's that.


Just because the top posters are posting for kicks...as you put it...does not mean the main purpose of the board is not being fufilled in other folks, perhaps less prolific that answer questions, discuss things (that obviously just bore the pants off you)....and so forth.

I am fairly sure that what most people value as important or interesting, are things that you do not share....your loss.
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #62 on: March 25, 2014, 05:53:35 PM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
You can draw a curve (kinematics) to model geocentrism. But you won't be able to account for the forces involved. The heliocentric model does that nicely. Kepler's three laws of motion can be mathematically  deduced from Newton's laws.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,683


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #63 on: March 25, 2014, 06:03:42 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 06:05:07 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #64 on: March 25, 2014, 10:36:42 PM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #65 on: March 25, 2014, 10:47:30 PM »

Let me clarify briefly.

There is no means of determining whether the earth is orbiting the sun or the sun is orbiting the earth.  It's a point of reference issue.  Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  THAT there is movement doesn't determine HOW there is movement.

After spending much time examining the pitiful alleged proofs (Foucault's Pendulum, Michelson-Morley, etc.) for heliocentricity and reading a thorough series of treatments of the Neo-Tychonian model of geocentricity by modern scientists opposed to Copernicanism; I see it's a coin-flip that isn't empirically resolvable without bias.

So... I consider the passages in the God-breathed text to be more than enough as the tie-breaker for such an impasse, though most just accept what the high priests of science (falsely so called) have adamantly postulated and hypothesized into theory.  And which has already been referenced in this thread as "fact".

Fact is not necessarily nor inherently truth. So all someone will have to do to convince me of heliocentricity is provide empirical truth from any actual empiricism.  Foucault's Pendulum is a joke.  Michelson-Morley is no better.  Airy's Failure is an inverse proof, as are the others.  There ARE no other empirical proofs.  Heliocentrism was declared, not proven.  The kinematics are identical between helio and Tychonian.  Forces have been applied based upon perceived kinematics.

It's one giant tail-chasing endeavore of inference and adamance from indoctrination as cognitive dissonance.  To say it's anything more than a coin flip is Humanistic religious dogma.  But that's how pervasive the deceit and delusion has become.  It's just another sub-cognitive limbic lie sown into cultures as children to invert reasoning and cognition itself.

God didn't need billions of years of chaos finding order all by itself.  God created all decently and in order, and He didn't need created time to assist Him with His handiwork.

My faith is in the living God and the High Priest forever, not the high priests of gnosis.  My faith did not come from hearing the false rhema of Humanists.
Before giving the reasons to support heliocentrism and reject geocentrism, it is useful to know whether you argue geocentrism from the POV of Newtonian mechanics or General Relativity or neither?

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

If you understand what I'm referring to, you'll know that it's impossible.  Geocentricity has never been, and cannot be, disproven empirically.  Kinematics are identical, and dynamics are unproven and unprovable.
You can draw a curve (kinematics) to model geocentrism. But you won't be able to account for the forces involved. The heliocentric model does that nicely. Kepler's three laws of motion can be mathematically  deduced from Newton's laws.

I'm really more interested in whatever sound and absolute refutation there is for Tychonian geocentricity with literal data.

All the conceptualizing in the world won't replace absolute fundamental empirical proofs from actual experiments that aren't just formulations and projections.  I've spent a good deal of time investigating this topic rather than just migrating to the cultural norm of bare assertion.

Modern geocentrists aren't just delusional idiots.  There's quite a bulk of information that legitimately challenges the now-status quo.  There isn't even a reasonable overall explanation and understanding of what gravity IS, and Newtonian precepts are far from universal.

I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #66 on: March 25, 2014, 10:51:09 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #67 on: March 26, 2014, 12:00:08 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.
Logged
OrthoNoob
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,005



« Reply #68 on: March 26, 2014, 12:54:24 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.

You know the Psalms make reference to 'the four corners of the earth', right? Do you take that in the most idiotically literal way possible as well?
Logged

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

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #69 on: March 26, 2014, 05:30:07 AM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Anyone who isn't a crank or a dolt can read the material for themselves in innumerable textbooks and popular scientific works; I feel no obligation to you as a judge on this. That the man-made satellites that my father worked on can be chucked all over the solar system is of itself sufficient proof for me. Besides, that still leaves you without a model.

Quote
Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.

I also do not give you weight as an interpreter of scripture.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,683


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #70 on: March 26, 2014, 05:03:49 PM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Yes , and the Church said much the same when they branded him a heretic, and it took over 500 years before admitting their mistake, but some people never learn.
« Last Edit: March 26, 2014, 05:04:21 PM by Sinful Hypocrite » Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #71 on: March 27, 2014, 01:58:34 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #72 on: March 27, 2014, 02:05:50 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.

You know the Psalms make reference to 'the four corners of the earth', right? Do you take that in the most idiotically literal way possible as well?

No.  Considering the Hebrew semantics and grammar, and figurative language mechanisms, there's no need to do so.  I suppose everything needs to be allegorized into non-reality so we'll have to embrace Hegelian Dialectic about every truth of the faith instead of scripture and holy tradition.  Not for me.

Notice how quickly this degenerates to veiled name-calling, and yet there is no direct and falsifiable empirical evidence to provide.  Just conceptualization and inference from a lifetime of regurgitating a biased status quo from Atheists who foundationally give no quarter to any possiblity of creationism.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #73 on: March 27, 2014, 02:15:42 AM »

Neither.  And I'm not looking for "reasons".  I'm wanting absolute empirical proof of heliocentricity with data, AND a specific refutation of the Neo-Tychonian model.  It would also mean determining what gravity "is" and substantiating Newtonian and Einsteinian postulates.

I'm utterly confident that there is no Neo-Tychonian model. There's Tycho's old idea of the sun revolving around earth and the other planets revolving around the sun, but that's not a model that's capable of the kind of mechanical predictions that the Newtonian model produces. Tycho didn't even begin to contemplate how the local galaxy moves (he had no idea it was there) and the kind of mental hacks needed to imagine the universe moving around the earth rapidly become too belabored to take seriously.

Then it should be quite simple for you to produce the thorough and absolute empirical data that refutes whatever you'd like to call any form of the Tychonian model of geocentricity.  Start with kinematics and move to dynamics, with all the data references.  I'd like to access all the evidence from the scientific community.

Anyone who isn't a crank or a dolt can read the material for themselves in innumerable textbooks and popular scientific works; I feel no obligation to you as a judge on this. That the man-made satellites that my father worked on can be chucked all over the solar system is of itself sufficient proof for me. Besides, that still leaves you without a model.

Quote
Remember... It also means a lower view of inspiration of scripture.  It reduces the text to men's authorship rather than the Holy Spirit.

I also do not give you weight as an interpreter of scripture.


And there you have it.  Agitated insolence and aggression, just because I challenge the failed status quo that has indoctrinated every modern culture with Scientific Naturalism.

I know how you feel.  It was my first reaction a few years ago before having the sense to explore the topic for myself.

I see you're content to let every breathing Atheist interpret scripture, but can't abide a fellow believer suggesting they're wrong based upon the inspired text and an extended look at the lack of evidence.

I don't really care what you think, in the end.  I feel no obligation to you as the judge on this matter, either.  You merely believe the same 4th-grade lie you always did without bothering to question the foundations.

IOW... You won't be actually providing any established and falsifiable empirical proofs, but will resort to calling me names in the stead of said evidence.  I'm accustomed to that.  Cognitive dissonance is a cruel master for heliocentrists.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #74 on: March 27, 2014, 02:23:48 AM »

I had no idea people questioned heliocentrism.

Yeah, and there are some who say we did not land on the moon Roll Eyes.

Galileo said it well, "The Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."

And Joshua said, "Sun stand still."  (My paraphrase.)  Scripture is supposed to be God-breathed.  I, for one, take that quite seriously.  Galileo, on the other hand, has no bearing on inspired truth.  I don't quote him.
Yes , and the Church said much the same when they branded him a heretic, and it took over 500 years before admitting their mistake, but some people never learn.

I see.  So you won't and can't provide any actual falsifiable empirical evidence FOR heliocentricity and AGAINST geocentricity.  Rhetoric is irrelevant.  Let's see the extensive data.

You're right.  Some people never learn.  The rest of the few of us examine such things instead of placing our trust in intentional deception such as heliocentricity.

Have you ever bothered to do some modern open-minded research?  Highly doubtful.

The Pied Piper would be proud.  (Cue melody.)
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #75 on: March 27, 2014, 02:37:15 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #76 on: March 27, 2014, 10:06:16 AM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 10:08:21 AM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #77 on: March 27, 2014, 11:49:32 AM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #78 on: March 27, 2014, 01:57:35 PM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise  in the southern hemisphere. This would not happen in a geostationary earth. 
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #79 on: March 28, 2014, 01:34:48 PM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.

It's already been done.  Foucault's Pendulum doesn't inherently demonstrate rotation or heliocentricity.  Maybe you should research more than the one biased view of a nominal and rudimentary "experiment".  If you don't, and you want to adhere to humanistic dogma, I probably can't fix that.

Just be honest.  You've never once even remotely considered this topic without complete bias from a lifetime of indoctrination into Scientific Naturalism.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #80 on: March 28, 2014, 01:36:00 PM »


I'll have to see the experiments, both for and against geocentricity, with falsifications.
An apple falling from a tree is a basic experiment which supports Newton's laws of motion. From there you can easily derive Kepler's laws.

Then you'll be providing the actual empirical application of a falling apple extrapolated to be valid for the entire universe?  And you'll be referencing some actual falsifiable experimentation that disproves geocentricity and proves heliocentricity?

The reason you can't and won't, you see, is because it has never happened.  And anyone who actually knows anything about this field recognizes it's a coin-toss with preferences and no allowances for any other consideration.  That's why there's only a much smaller group of scientists focusing on geocentricity and other answers to the various paradoxes and band-aids of the biased mainstream views.

Quote
It is inconsistent with any physical theory of gravity to have the stars and galaxies with a radius of 14 billion light years and a mass of 10^27 times the earth rotating about the earth every 24 hours.

They're not rotating about the earth every 24 hours.  Space is, as it carries them in its postulated Planck density of 10^93.  You'll need to tell us what gravity IS, then, too.  Newton didn't know.  Nobody knows.

What this always does is escalate with condescension, etc. for anyone who dares oppose a view that has never been truly established in the same empirical manner as demanded of virtually everything else.  And I'm always the idiot moron whatever, just because I have actually examined the lack of evidence after being duped by heliocentricity most of my own life.

It's sad to endure this from professing believers from the Orthodox and Latin traditions, when most have never even considered the topic or have any idea who Tycho Brahe even is.  Most initially think I'm advocating the Ptolemaic model.
At the non-relativistic scales of measurement that we are familiar with, Newton's laws of motion have been verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years.

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.  Yet there isn't.

Kinematics (movements) and dynamics (forces) must be considered separately.  The kinematics are identical with inverted frames of reference for sun and earth, if you'll access or construct an orery to observe them.  So dynamics then bear the burden of proof without all the gesticulations about satellites and other movement-related observations.

This isn't the easy simple declaration it's been made out to be.  It's just taboo to dare challenge the high priesthood of Empiricism and Rationalism.  This blatant prelest shouldn't be allowed to be a foundational part of anyone's faith.  But that part is above my paygrade.  I'm only responsible for me in this regard.

Again... I'd invite anyone to present actual and irrefutable falsifiable empirical data contrasting heliocentricity and (Tychonian) geocentricity.  It would also be interesting to see how many know about a non-Ptolemaic model to begin with.  I haven't met anyone yet who knew anything about the historical process except what they were indoctrinated to believe from childhood out of secular textbooks propagandizing biased lies of an earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through the (alleged) nothingness of space in orbit at... wait for it... 67,000mph.

Projection, conceptualization, extrapolation, and speculation are no more valid than the arrogant condescension, denegration, and obfuscation that always accompany this topic instead of cogent and undeniable empiricism.

Those who worship at the altar of the religion of Scientific Naturalism are of no concern to my living faith in the God of ALL creation and the Church.  I'd just like to see the empirical results of the alleged Empiricism.
Weather systems always rotate counter clockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise  in the southern hemisphere. This would not happen in a geostationary earth.  

Conceptual inference and accompanying bare assertion.  Kinematics driving perception of forces.  Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?

And only "hard" geocentrism demands a fixed earth.  A "soft" geocentrism allows or posits a rotating earth.  Neither requires heliocentricity.  And kinematics and dynamics are still two distinct considerations, even though interrelated.  One does not determine the other.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:39:57 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #81 on: March 28, 2014, 03:59:16 PM »

Look, if you want to hold as some metaphysical tenet that the earth doesn't move, I don't care. If you don't understand how Foucault's pendulum demonstrates the rotation of the earth, I probably can't fix that. But if you can't produce a model which explains the pendulum's behavior, you have nothing.

It's already been done.  Foucault's Pendulum doesn't inherently demonstrate rotation or heliocentricity.  Maybe you should research more than the one biased view of a nominal and rudimentary "experiment".  If you don't, and you want to adhere to humanistic dogma, I probably can't fix that.

Look, it's your crackpot idea. You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it. The rotation of the earth serves as an explanation for the pendulum's behavior, and an immobile earth, lacking something else to move the pendulum, does not.

And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system. Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.  If you ever produce something that works as well, I could begin to take you seriously. Come up with an explanation of why it's impossible for something in a polar orbit to always pass over the same spot on the equator, and we can talk further.

Quote
Just be honest.  You've never once even remotely considered this topic without complete bias from a lifetime of indoctrination into Scientific Naturalism.

It's a lifetime of reading books on science and taking calculus and physics and thus understanding all the math and theory behind that "scientific naturalism". I haven't "remotely considered" a Tychonian system beyond reading about it (in Scientific American, of all places something like forty years ago because beyond Tycho's diagrams, there's nothing to consider. I am not compelled to take seriously the vague statements of everyone who comes along. You are ducking the issue, over and over, that you don't seem to have a system to present.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #82 on: March 28, 2014, 04:10:50 PM »

While pondering this thread (I do a lot of pondering and rarely come up with answers), I started thinking about Dark Energy and whether a geocentric model would negate its need. It turns out there were models which were refuted recently in regard that they eliminated the need for Dark Energy (my take).

One model is here:

How close can an inhomogeneous universe mimic the concordance model?
Peter Dunsby, Naureen Goheer, Bob Osano and Jean-Philippe Uzan (2010)
Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics
http://iopscience.iop.org/1475-7516/2010/06/017/

Abstract:
Recently, spatially inhomogeneous cosmological models have been proposed as an alternative to the ΛCDM model, with the aim of reproducing the late time dynamics of the Universe without introducing a cosmological constant or dark energy. This paper investigates the possibility of distinguishing such models from the standard ΛCDM using background or large scale structure data. It also illustrates and emphasizes the necessity of testing the Copernican principle in order to confront the tests of general relativity with the large scale structure.

The refutation is here
Spectral distortion in a radially inhomogeneous cosmology
R. R. Caldwell and N. A. Maksimova (2013)
Phys. Rev. D 88, 103502
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.103502

Abstract:
The spectral distortion of the cosmic microwave background blackbody spectrum in a radially inhomogeneous space-time, designed to exactly reproduce a ΛCDM expansion history along the past light cone, is shown to exceed the upper bound established by COBE-FIRAS by a factor of approximately 3700. This simple observational test helps uncover a slew of pathological features that lie hidden inside the past light cone, including a radially contracting phase at decoupling and, if followed to its logical extreme, a naked singularity at the radially inhomogeneous big bang.

A likely hyped-up University Press release is easy to read here:
http://thedartmouth.com/2013/11/15/news/dartmouth-researchers-refute-geocentric-model

Quote:
     "The only mathematical model to date that has been able to fully explain the accelerating expansion of the universe is one that does not account for dark energy and, as a result, places Earth near the center of the universe.

     Caldwell and Maksimova’s paper debunks this hypothesis. Using data from the NASA-owned Cosmic Background Explorer satellite, Caldwell and Maksimova proved that the actual spectrum of thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang, known as cosmic microwave background, is inconsistent with the model that requires that Earth be in the middle of the universe."



« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 04:11:24 PM by Opus118 » Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,683


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #83 on: March 28, 2014, 04:35:27 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,389


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #84 on: March 28, 2014, 04:51:09 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #85 on: March 28, 2014, 05:33:34 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."

Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #86 on: March 28, 2014, 05:37:44 PM »

Look, it's your crackpot idea.

LOL.  Ummm... Thanks for the kudos, but... no.  It's not my idea at all.  And your ad hominem isn't impressive, especially as a professing Christian.  You've obviously never accessed one shred of information on Tychonian geocentricity.  So don't blame me for your bias of cognitive dissonance.

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

You hold an adamant view and haven't bothered to contrast anything else.

Quote
The rotation of the earth serves as an explanation for the pendulum's behavior, and an immobile earth, lacking something else to move the pendulum, does not.

You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

Quote
If you ever produce something that works as well, I could begin to take you seriously.

I'm not concerned whether an anonymous Kabbalah-indoctrinated alleged Christian takes me seriously or not.  I have my faith to God, and Him alone.  And I've accessed enough research to be convinced it's a coin-toss at the very least.

I'm not even advocating for geocentricity in any adamant sense, just opposing the ridiculous assertions of heliocentricity from those who haven't bothered to find out it IS a coin-flip rather than being able to determine for certain between geocentricity and heliocentricity.

Quote
Come up with an explanation of why it's impossible for something in a polar orbit to always pass over the same spot on the equator, and we can talk further.

I doubt it.  Your mind has been made up for a very long time.  And if you truly want to examine the evidence without bias, there is plenty of searchable material all over the internet.

Quote
It's a lifetime of reading books on science and taking calculus and physics and thus understanding all the math and theory behind that "scientific naturalism".

Exactly.  Indoctrination.  Your implicit trust in Euclid, Pythagoras, Kepler, Copernicus, and others is not impressive.  One of the Brothers in my Parish is a Physics professor for grad students at the local state university.  In conversations with him, he has acquiesced to the fact that it's a coin-toss, and says he struggles with the foundations of many things in modern Physics.

Quote
I haven't "remotely considered" a Tychonian system beyond reading about it (in Scientific American, of all places something like forty years ago because beyond Tycho's diagrams, there's nothing to consider.

LOL.  And there you have it.  You just don't realize the source and degree of prelest in the modern religion of Empiricism.

Quote
I am not compelled to take seriously the vague statements of everyone who comes along. You are ducking the issue, over and over, that you don't seem to have a system to present.

I'm not ducking anything.  I just refuse to undertake the futility of presenting research you haven't bothered to do on the way to your blind adamance in compliance with science falsely so called as an alleged believer.

At the very least, you must take a much lower view of inspiration of the canon of scripture.  The Holy Spirit would not mispeak in such misleading ways, and men had to have been a much stronger impetus in the writings from their limited human perspective.  You must allegorize and minimize scripture.  I can't take anyone seriously who does THAT.

But you seem to think others should be concerned about whether you take them seriously while disregarding that to be a mutual concern.  If YOU want to be taken seriously, then at least access the research on geocentricity and admit it's a coin-toss depending upon chosen frame of reference.

As far as I'm concerned... the Earth spinning at +/- 800mph while hurtling through space at 67,000mph is the crackpot idea.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 05:41:26 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,683


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #87 on: March 28, 2014, 05:42:34 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #88 on: March 28, 2014, 06:11:38 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).


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

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #89 on: March 28, 2014, 06:17:50 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
Logged
Sinful Hypocrite
Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: "The Orthodox Church" by Bishop Kallistos Ware: "We know where the Church is but we cannot be sure where it is not; and so we must refrain from passing judgment on non-Orthodox Christians."
Posts: 1,683


Great googly moogly!


« Reply #90 on: March 28, 2014, 07:18:05 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.


Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)
Logged

The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #91 on: March 28, 2014, 08:46:37 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.


Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

I have no disagreement with this. You also have a valid statement if you decide that the center of the Milky Way is the center of the Universe as far as I am concerned based on my current state of knowledge about this..
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #92 on: March 28, 2014, 09:10:11 PM »

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

The one explanation I find is simply a superimposition of a rotating frame of reference on top of the real Newtonian model. That really comes under the heading of cheating, a violation of the basic Baconian precept to avoid introducing unnecessary entities. Of course, if you feel that geocentricism requires explanation, then it isn't "unnecessary", but since geocentrism isn't a phenomenon, I don't see the need to explain it.

And it isn't the "inspired canon of scripture" that you expect me to trust; it's your interpretation.

Quote
You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

I am unaware of whether any of the various luminiferous aether experiments have been carried out in space without using the earth as part of the baseline. Of course, if you don't believe in the aether, then the fact of whether the earth is or is not moving in relationship to it is not detectable.

Quote
Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

OK, I don't believe you. I'm not even going to bother to ask my father or the various people I know who actually do work at NASA whether they use geocentric coordinates because I don't need the "why do you want to know anyway?" questions, followed by the "why are you arguing with that idiot?" ridicule. But at any rate I don't really need to ask them, because I've programmed this sort of behavior. And like everyone else I worked from a heliocentric basis because the math is easier that way; if I wanted to work out the various bodies' positions with respect to the earth (or any other arbitrary object) I do the trig.

Quote
Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

No, they don't. I don't feel it's worth the trouble to work out whether it makes a difference, for objects going into earth orbit, if a launch occurs at noon or midnight. However, even for such launches they take the rotation of the earth into account; it's why launches generally head east after takeoff. For interplanetary launches they invariably work from a heliocentric basis, because that's what makes the math possible.

Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #93 on: March 28, 2014, 09:16:53 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




Fudge factor, indeed.  And possibly the most absurd and ridiculous in the history of science falsely so called.  It's the most gigantic and inane band-aid yet for the endless speculative lies.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #94 on: March 28, 2014, 09:19:44 PM »

How could Earth be at the center of the Universe when we are located on the outskirts of a Galaxy with billions of other stars. The fact is that maybe those issues could argue the milky way at the center, but not Earth.

I think that this issue comes up because we do not know where the center of what comprises all the mass, energy, dark mass, dark energy (and who knows what else) is. It could be far away from any galaxy. At this point I do not know what "near earth" means.

Thinking about this kind of stuff can give you a headache. But to continue....

This is a statement in the PhysRevD refutation paper cited above:

"That is, a post-decoupling cosmos containing just dark matter and baryons obeying the laws of general relativity can satisfy many of the classical tests of cosmology. The price to pay seems philosophical, since for this to work we must be located at the center of a radially inhomogeneous space- time, contrary to the Copernican and Cosmological principles."

And the refutation at this point is not conclusive. Referring to the PhyRevD paper again in regard to geocentric models:

"Is there any future for such models? It is conceivable that a more realistic treatment of decoupling and the radiation-dominated epoch could weaken the level of spectral distortion that we calculate. We have made the simplifying assumption of tight coupling of the radiation with baryonic and dark matter until decoupling, and adapted the Gamow criterion in order to identify the origin of the CMB with a critical value of the matter density (e.g. Refs. [28,33]). We implicitly assumed that any slip that develops between the matter species and radiation leads to a negligible source of temperature anisotropy in our calculation of the spectral distortion. That this assumption may not be wholly justified has been argued in Ref. [60]. We leave a more sophisticated treatment of the CMB for future work."



Dark mass \ energy is not understood in the same way that we know that where Earth is. Dark energy\mass will never change that.

I am not sure what you mean by this. We know where earth is locally (on a cosmological scale; in terms of what we can see and what we can infer from instruments). My post above is about dark energy and it is certainly not understood as you say, the term didn't exist until 1998. The Cosmological constant also had to be reintroduced into the lexicon at the same time (My opinion: it is a kind of fudge factor that may or may not be necessary at this point.).




My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.

How do you know what you just said?

Quote

Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

Where do such images come from?  You realize that's not a photograph, right?
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #95 on: March 28, 2014, 09:31:00 PM »

Quote
You present the other explanation for how the pendulum works, and I will consider it.

Go do the research.  It's not that difficult.  I've expressed my position and the general reasons for it.  It's not my responsibility to convince you of something you haven't ever considered while implicitly trusting the Atheistic priesthood of the religion of Empiricism exponentially more than you trust the inspired canon of scripture.

The one explanation I find is simply a superimposition of a rotating frame of reference on top of the real Newtonian model. That really comes under the heading of cheating, a violation of the basic Baconian precept to avoid introducing unnecessary entities. Of course, if you feel that geocentricism requires explanation, then it isn't "unnecessary", but since geocentrism isn't a phenomenon, I don't see the need to explain it.

And it isn't the "inspired canon of scripture" that you expect me to trust; it's your interpretation.

Quote
You might want to check the contrary evidence, along with the refutations for Michelson-Morley and taking a look at Airy's Failure.

I am unaware of whether any of the various luminiferous aether experiments have been carried out in space without using the earth as part of the baseline. Of course, if you don't believe in the aether, then the fact of whether the earth is or is not moving in relationship to it is not detectable.

Quote
Quote
And that is hardly the only thing out there. As I said earlier, my father worked on many artificial satellites, which have orbited the earth, gone to the moon, flown by other planets, landed on asteroids, and left the solar system.

Firstly, geocentric coordinates are used for such things; and you very likely have no idea about the movement of the aether of space (the firmament) with a theorized Planck density of 10^93.  Secondly, I have little confidence in the actuality of many such alleged events other than orbiting objects which would require the same exact inverse application of forces for geocentricity as for heliocentricity.  Space is moving, not earth.  Same-same in relativistic terms.

OK, I don't believe you. I'm not even going to bother to ask my father or the various people I know who actually do work at NASA whether they use geocentric coordinates because I don't need the "why do you want to know anyway?" questions, followed by the "why are you arguing with that idiot?" ridicule. But at any rate I don't really need to ask them, because I've programmed this sort of behavior. And like everyone else I worked from a heliocentric basis because the math is easier that way; if I wanted to work out the various bodies' positions with respect to the earth (or any other arbitrary object) I do the trig.

Quote
Quote
Newtonian/relativistic mechanics in a non-fixed-frame cosmology were used successfully to set their courses.

You might want to check again.  NASA uses geocentric coordinates for their launches.

No, they don't. I don't feel it's worth the trouble to work out whether it makes a difference, for objects going into earth orbit, if a launch occurs at noon or midnight. However, even for such launches they take the rotation of the earth into account; it's why launches generally head east after takeoff. For interplanetary launches they invariably work from a heliocentric basis, because that's what makes the math possible.

I'm fine with whatever you do or don't do in regards to investigating the modern undercurrents of Tychonian geocentricity research.

And you expect others to adhere to YOUR interpretation of holy writ as allegory and from erroneous human perspective.  I'm also fine with that impasse, since I don't accept your interpretation.

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

The Church takes no interpretive position on the matter.  And if it does at this point in adamant favor of heliocentricity, I will leave and consider it an apostate declaration.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 09:33:42 PM by PneumaPsucheSoma » Logged
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,406



« Reply #96 on: March 28, 2014, 10:42:01 PM »


Quote
My point is that dark energy and or matter has nothing to do with where earth is located, and we know Earth is on the outer part of one arm of the spiral of the galaxy.

How do you know what you just said?

Quote

Earth is located in the outer edge of our galaxy, called the Milky Way. It is about 28,000 light years from the galactic center and is part of a Solar System that includes seven other known planets. Earth is the only known planet with the ability to sustain life as we know it. The Milky Way is one of billions of spiral galaxies in the universe. (Image: NASA, Galaxy M83, similar size and shape to the Milky Way)

Where do such images come from?  You realize that's not a photograph, right?


Yes. It is a photograph and there are many that have been taken by telescopes such as the Hubble.  That is not the Milky Way (our own) Galaxy.  The post says that it's M83 which is in the constellation of Hydra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_83

There are plenty of photographs of galaxies and starts and more.  There's the Astronomy Picture of the Day site (APOD) http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html


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: 3,809


« Reply #97 on: March 28, 2014, 11:13:21 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #98 on: March 29, 2014, 12:44:07 AM »

Then instead of generalization and conceptualization as speculation, there should be plenty of falsifiable empirical experimentation and data to scrutinize and make a clear and unequivocal determination.
Newton's laws are easily falsifiable as indicated previously.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #99 on: March 29, 2014, 01:13:56 AM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #100 on: March 29, 2014, 07:47:23 AM »

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

No, it's not in the realm of "factual" at all. It's just an argument on your part (I surmise) that you consider all the intermediate positions to be the same as the most extreme opposition to the position you claim to hold. The truth is that the whole range of intermediate positions is held, and that nobody actually holds to an absolute literalist position because scripture doesn't even do so with itself.

Furthermore, there is no distinction in the sky between a geocentric sun which halts in its orbit and a heliocentric earth which ceases to spin. Or to put it in other words, there is another way out of this entirely, which is to quit arguing with the text. One does not have to work out a mechanism for the miracles recounted in scripture; it is sufficient that they show the supernatural presence, power, and authority of the Lord. I do not accept your arrogation of interpretation of these as tests of faith in your system of interpretation, and as you say, your church doesn't accept that either. It's only d*mned Protestants who make up such tests, and while I am a d*mned Protestant, I'm not one of those Protestants. And assuming you actually are Antiochian, your church does not grant you the right to set up such a test. So why don't you go back to obeying your church and quit belaboring this topic?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 07:47:48 AM by Keble » Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #101 on: March 29, 2014, 09:55:06 AM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #102 on: March 29, 2014, 10:01:23 AM »

Joshua and Isaiah (and others) were either directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, or they were writing as humans from their own potentially erroneous perspectives.  It does affect one's view of the level of inspiration of holy writ.  That's not a negotiable matter, it's a factual assertion.

No, it's not in the realm of "factual" at all. It's just an argument on your part (I surmise) that you consider all the intermediate positions to be the same as the most extreme opposition to the position you claim to hold. The truth is that the whole range of intermediate positions is held, and that nobody actually holds to an absolute literalist position because scripture doesn't even do so with itself.

Furthermore, there is no distinction in the sky between a geocentric sun which halts in its orbit and a heliocentric earth which ceases to spin. Or to put it in other words, there is another way out of this entirely, which is to quit arguing with the text. One does not have to work out a mechanism for the miracles recounted in scripture; it is sufficient that they show the supernatural presence, power, and authority of the Lord. I do not accept your arrogation of interpretation of these as tests of faith in your system of interpretation, and as you say, your church doesn't accept that either. It's only d*mned Protestants who make up such tests, and while I am a d*mned Protestant, I'm not one of those Protestants. And assuming you actually are Antiochian, your church does not grant you the right to set up such a test. So why don't you go back to obeying your church and quit belaboring this topic.

I see, so you are a Protestant.  That explains it.

I have set up no test.  I came to this thread and expressed my view and the reason for it.  It is you and all other heliocentrists who make it a test, not I.

I'm not the one who engages in fruitless and loveless condescension and ad hominem.  My Church has no position on the matter, but does not preclude me from taking such a position.

My only test would be if the Church actually takes such a position (which won't happen), and then it would be a sign of apostasy.  It's an irrelevant concern, since the Church will not be so foolish as Kabbalist Protestants and Latins, swayed by Atheistic religion of Empricism.

I merely responded to the topic and to the condescension of you and others, which I will now desist.  In the end, I couldn't care less about anything except faith, hope, and love.  Forgive me if the last of those has been lacking in my zeal for the first two on this issue.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #103 on: March 29, 2014, 10:13:29 AM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,411



« Reply #104 on: March 29, 2014, 11:59:19 AM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake. Saying "all I did was express my view" does not cut it as a response, and I infer from your postings that claims of ignorance of these principles are implausible.

From your first response to me you have made unsupportable assertions about the connection between other people's views of scripture and the accuracy of their cosmology. I am not constrained to think as you imply I do, not because I am a Protestant, but because I am a human being, and because your unstated logic is faulty to the core. Now that this issue has come to the fore you are dismissive and therefore evasive, and that's after the whole space travel nonsense in which you made flat and false statements.

Your recourse to an ad hominem I take as concession of the field.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #105 on: March 29, 2014, 02:35:48 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #106 on: March 29, 2014, 02:37:21 PM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake. Saying "all I did was express my view" does not cut it as a response, and I infer from your postings that claims of ignorance of these principles are implausible.

From your first response to me you have made unsupportable assertions about the connection between other people's views of scripture and the accuracy of their cosmology. I am not constrained to think as you imply I do, not because I am a Protestant, but because I am a human being, and because your unstated logic is faulty to the core. Now that this issue has come to the fore you are dismissive and therefore evasive, and that's after the whole space travel nonsense in which you made flat and false statements.

Your recourse to an ad hominem I take as concession of the field.

You take it wrong, then.  No concession from me whatsoever.  I simply leave you to your fallacies with no research on the matter beyond your indoctrination.  Just because Atheists have scultped a modern status quo from erroneous foundations, it doesn't supercede actual truth.

I've never been concerned with the futility of swaying others' opinions.  Just in representing that there is another position that most are oblivious to and won't entertain because of prelest and cognitive dissonance.

You've shown that very clearly, just as most others do and have.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #107 on: March 29, 2014, 02:47:05 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

All somebody needs to do is delineate exactly and precisely what gravity actually IS.  Isaac didn't know.  Nobody knows.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #108 on: March 29, 2014, 02:48:15 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #109 on: March 29, 2014, 02:50:17 PM »

 Just because Atheists have scultped a modern status quo from erroneous foundations, it doesn't supercede actual truth.
Show us a non-relativistic example  where Newton's laws are an erroneous foundation.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #110 on: March 29, 2014, 02:54:30 PM »

Pneuma-whatever, it has been understood from the beginning of computer fora that throwing out a controversial and contrarian opinion is an invitation for rejoinder, if not an act of agitation for its own sake.

And if you'll read the thread title and the OP, you'll see I posted accordingly rather than "out of controversial and contrarian opinion as an invitation for rejoinder or an act of agitation for its own sake".

Historically, heliocentricity is controversial and contrarian.  The rise of the religion of Empricism is what turned the tide.

You may not realize it, but your views are a belief system; and that goes to the very core of the heart (which biologically includes the limbic system and its neuro-chemical contributions to both cognition, volition, and emotion).
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #111 on: March 29, 2014, 03:02:57 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #112 on: March 29, 2014, 03:20:09 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
I don't see any support for denying Newton's laws of motion in the non-relativistic framework which is appropriate here.
Logged
PneumaPsucheSoma
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Antiochian
Posts: 49


« Reply #113 on: March 29, 2014, 04:14:03 PM »

 Is there any empirical data you'd like to introduce?
I've already given it - an apple falling from a tree. Newton's laws would be falsified if the apple, in the middle of its downward flight toward the earth, turned around and went high up in the air, and then circled around a few times and then took flight in a zig zag pattern.. Newton's laws have been verified millions of times, and his laws are all that is needed to prove heliocentrism.

Fail.
And the support for your assertion? Give me an example where, in the absence of other forces such as friction, wind or storms, the apple does not fall to the ground. Are you familiar with the polar equation of an ellipse with eccentricity e, and directrix x=d? Using Newton's laws, it is easy to show that the orbit of a planet must be an ellipse, with the sun as one of the foci.  Give me a non-relativistic example, where Newton's laws have been violated. If you are claiming that an example fails, you have to give a reason for it, or your assertion is not credible.

All you have to do is access the research on that which you have rejected out of hand.  I've done that and am convinced enough it's a coin-toss that I don't need to show what the inverse dynamics would be to the undefined alleged dynamic of gravity.

Why would you engage me rather than investigating?  Because you have no intention of having neutrality without bias.

I was a heliocentrist until about 3 years ago, and for all the same reasons you and everyone else is a heliocentrist.  Then I accessed the research.  You could do that if you would.

Geocentricity doesn't hinge on my credibility because I mention it on a forum.  Heliocentricity has no credibilty from any posts on this forum, and that's irrelevant as well.

Why argue with me, or demand from me?  Go do the research if you really want to know.  But you won't.  This isn't hard.
I don't see any support for denying Newton's laws of motion in the non-relativistic framework which is appropriate here.

And I don't see any definition of what gravity IS, yet it's the alleged central fixture for those dynamics.  Just tell me what gravity is.  You can't.  No one can.  It's undefined as a force.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,389


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #114 on: March 29, 2014, 05:00:52 PM »

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/gravity?q=gravity

Okay, you're kidding, right?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,705


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #115 on: March 29, 2014, 05:10:47 PM »


My dear biro, PPS has made up his mind. Don't confuse him with facts.   Wink
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #116 on: March 29, 2014, 05:17:20 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.

Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #117 on: March 29, 2014, 05:20:29 PM »

Obviously, yes; he is creating problems where there are none. To prove heliocentrism all you need to know are Newton's laws and that gravity is the natural phenomenon whereby one body of mass attracts the other according to the inverse square law. To endorse geocentrism is like saying that when an apple falls to the ground, it is really not the apple that is moving, but it is the earth which is moving up and accelerating  toward the apple which remains stationary.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #118 on: March 29, 2014, 05:31:19 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,705


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: March 29, 2014, 05:33:15 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #120 on: March 29, 2014, 05:50:34 PM »

Where is the center of the universe?

There isn't one.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html

I didn't notice this when I posted Biro (at my rate of typing, I have more or less given up on trying to keep up). Thanks.
To argue geocentrism is similar to argue that a household fly is actually the stationary center of the universe. You can argue that the fly is stationary, so that although it appears that when the fly goes from the ground to a higher level, actually it is the earth which is moving backwards while the fly is completely stationary. Also, the moon, the sun and the whole galaxy and universe move in tandem to give the illusion that the fly has moved up. But the fact is that the fly is stationary and hasn't moved at all and it is really the whole universe has moved. Now substitute the earth for the fly and see if the argument makes any sense. 

As you know I am only arguing against anti-geocentrism. And, I am only making this argument because I am trying to find out if certain aspects of general relativity are incorrect.

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
It is true of course that according to GR there is no center to the universe. But then if you argue from GR, geocentrism would be wrong also. Anyway, Newton's laws give an excellent approximation to what is going on. Geocentrism does not take into account the dynamics of the Newtonian forces.

I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink

Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #121 on: March 29, 2014, 05:54:55 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,705


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #122 on: March 29, 2014, 05:59:21 PM »


I think I am going to have to look in the Ersatzian dictionary for an appropriate term that I cannot find online. Abcentrism, acentrism, pancentrism, omincentrism can (and often do) mean something else like anti-centrism.  I did learn abcentric and omnicentric are body types with a particular exercise and diet program. I am trying to decide between pancentrirelativism or pancentrorelativism.  I think omnicentrirelativism and omnicentrorelativism have too many syllables. Maybe leave out the pan and omni all together. I do not know. This is why we need better dictionaries.



Ah, but PPS have an Ersatzian dictionary? More to the point, would he know where to get one?  Wink

Ersatzian University Press sells it. I think it is in Armenia or some place like that with similar names.

Armenia? That doesn't sound right. IIRC it's Elbonia.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2014, 05:59:58 PM by LBK » Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #123 on: March 29, 2014, 08:44:59 PM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #124 on: March 30, 2014, 01:20:36 AM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 

If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #125 on: March 30, 2014, 02:52:56 AM »

I assume the fly example refers back to this exchange we had, since Einstein also mentions a fly in an elevator:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50550.msg977696.html#msg977696

The question is, why are near-geocentric models being explored in peer-reviewed journals and debated (as noted above)?
Thanks for this reference and link which I had forgotten about.
As for your question,  I don't know what the answer is. I'll need more time to think about it.

I do not know as well. My guess is that there is some possibility that it would shed some light on dark energy.
Of course it has been proposed to modify Newtonian dynamics to account for dark matter or dark energy, I am not sure which, but  I don't see where these modifications would affect the much  smaller scale heliocentric model of the solar system - if that is what we are talking about.  The MOND proposal which involves a modificaton of the Newtonian force law F=ma, requires an adjustment to the acceleration due to gravitational force which could be appropriate in describing some centripetal accelerations of gas clouds or stars on the edge of galaxies, but there is a problem with momentum conservation and so it is controversial. 

If this was never clear, I do not reject the heliocentric model. I only reject notions that geocentric models are impossible based on what I learned in college. I can accept that geocentric models are not particularly useful. See my post #18 above describing how I am being pedantic on this issue.

In regard to the near geocentric model (and there are a lot more of these papers that were published), it doesn't look rotational to me and that is why I considered the Dartmouth article as possibly hype which is now common to University publicity announcements.

While my viewpoint will not help with flat-earthers and now the inner-ring-siders, it should help with the geocentrists. A lot of geocentrists base their beliefs on a strict interpretation of the bible (this is my conjecture, but ego also plays a role). It seems to me it would be easier to just say to these people that they are correct and the Copernican view is also correct and if they do not like that, force them to attack general relativity. Foucault's pendulum and the coriolis effect has already been explain by Einstein, if I recall correctly. I could probably do it ad hoc, but I would not be very convincing. The question is what they would do without their usual attack point. They can of course add new hypothetical complexities such as aether (whatever that is) to an otherwise simpler system. But why should they introduce new variables when they are already correct, to disprove a simpler model that is also correct by adding these unfounded variables. This may also be a problem with dark energy and the cosmological constant and that is why there are publications that look to see if there are simpler models in regard to Occam's razor. In biological systems, I have seen Occam's razor fail fairly consistently in metazoans, I am not sure about the physical sciences. I suspect there is less wastefulness in that realm or these scientists are old fashion. I do this myself, but I expect the worse.

What I wrote probably doesn't make any sense, but I will answer questions, and it is free, and if you come over, I just bought some ice cream that I cannot eat.

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #126 on: March 30, 2014, 10:45:27 AM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #127 on: March 30, 2014, 08:47:58 PM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).
Logged
Opus118
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,522



« Reply #128 on: March 30, 2014, 10:02:32 PM »

Thanks. What is the flavor of the ice cream? Is it because this is Lent that you don't want to eat it?
I'm thinking that maybe I should just repeat here the well known mathematical proof of the heliocentric model from the two assumptions F=ma and the inverse square law.  Actually there is another assumption such as neglecting any other forces on the earth due to the other planets or distant stars or galaxies, which I think is reasonable at least to a good approximation. As for geocentrism, why would the earth be the center of the universe, and not the moon? Someone could just as easily claim that the earth's moon is the center of the whole universe and then what? After all, there was a man on the moon.
Dark energy is another problem which has not as yet been satisfactorially answered - perhaps there does have to be another modification to gravity at those scales. But I am not sure that you can appeal to both Einstein and the aether. You have to choose one or the other.

Chocolate, for the Roman Catholics that live with me.  The moon is an interesting thought. When I have time I will think about how that works out, it might be simpler (never know). I think your assumptions are minor in the context of the heliocentric model.
Yes. Why can't we have the earth, the other planets and the sun all revolve about the moon? It is possible to draw curves and epicycles to model that, so why not? (Hint: for the same reason that geocentrism is rejected).

You reject it.

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 0.491 seconds with 155 queries.