No Physical Difference Between the Geocentric Model and the Modern Heliocentric View

[Blayz]

Lee

I concur. Perhaps he meant "RichardT, you are a talented quote miner and link poster, and may have finished high school"

 

[RichardT]

[post deleted]

 

[LeeC]

[post deleted]

No regrets then?

 

[NailsII]

[post deleted]

I wished I had read that. Did I miss anything?

 

[RichardT]

Why would the earth be in the centre of the galaxy/universe - centre of anything, for that matter!!!

The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.

If, as you claim, we were created by god in his image, would he put us in the centre of anything?

Scripture doesn't tell us that we are the center of the universe, but it does tell us that the earth doesn't move and that the sun goes around the earth. He would do this because the bible says so, and the bible is meant to be truthful. I take it as a priori.

2 timothy 3:16

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

"Scripture simply says that the moon, the sun, and the stars were placed in the firmament of the heaven, below and above which heaven are the waters... It is likely that the stars are fastened to the firmament like globes of fire, to shed light at night... We Christians must be different from the philosophers in the way we think about the causes of things. And if some are beyond our comprehension like those before us concerning the waters above the heavens, we must believe them rather than wickedly deny them or presumptuously interpret them in conformity with our understanding."

-- Luther


The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that there is no physical difference between a Geocentric theory and the modern heliocentric view. Stellar Parallax works because the stars actually move forward and back. I'm still wondering if this works when it is focused on the sun or not. I was wondering if someone could check that out for me because I'm lazy. (currently listening to Dawkins vs. Lennox)

 

[Nathan Poe]

The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.

Bible Error #4,285 -- collect them all!

Scripture doesn't tell us that we are the center of the universe, but it does tell us that the earth doesn't move and that the sun goes around the earth. He would do this because the bible says so, and the bible is meant to be truthful. I take it as a priori.

You take it as a priori that God is a slave to the Bible? That He can only do things as your interpretation of Scripture dictates?

 

[RichardT]

You take it as a priori that God is a slave to the Bible? That He can only do things as your interpretation of Scripture dictates?

God is not a slave to the bible, it would be more appropriate to say the bible is the slave of God. I believe God would give us His revelation.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God is not a slave to the bible, it would be more appropriate to say the bible is the slave of God. I believe God would give us His revelation.

Which didn't happen -- instead, we have people living thousands of years ago who claim God gave them His revelation.

If you're in the market for revelations, it seems you missed out.

 

[NailsII]

The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.

Scripture doesn't tell us that we are the center of the universe, but it does tell us that the earth doesn't move and that the sun goes around the earth. He would do this because the bible says so, and the bible is meant to be truthful. I take it as a priori.

The purpose of this thread is to demonstrate that there is no physical difference between a Geocentric theory and the modern heliocentric view. Stellar Parallax works because the stars actually move forward and back. I'm still wondering if this works when it is focused on the sun or not. I was wondering if someone could check that out for me because I'm lazy. (currently listening to Dawkins vs. Lennox)

Please answer my question.
What is the significance of it all?
Everything god does has a purpose - that is logical.
Earth being in the centre of anything is illogical.
It makes no sense.
Nothing else would appear to have a significant centre, not you or I or any other animal I have seen.
Earth is not the most significant part of the solar system, the sun is by far the most significant part.
But there is a difference, because in your model the earth is stationary. If it doesn't move, why does it wobble and so give us seasons (hang on, psychic image coming.... God did it. To give us the seasons.... Am I right?).
For someone who relies on logic for their arguments, you have shown a distinct lack of it in your reply.
I was expecting much better.
Maybe I overestimated your ability to reason with someone else's line of enquiry....

 

[RichardT]

If it doesn't move, why does it wobble and so give us seasons

It doesn't wobble, the universe does the wobbling. When looking at the solar system as a reference frame it must seem like the earth is orbiting the sun in order for the laws of gravitation and relativity to be fulfilled. But we know that all forces are relative, there is no physical difference between a Geocentric theory and a Heliocentric theory.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance

(Hoyle 1975, cited in Willis 2000, 2).

all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them … Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true.

(Mach, E. 1921. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, p. 222.)

 

[Gracchus]

The law of gravity states that the force of gravity between any two masses is proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. (F=Gm(1)m(2) /d*2, where F= gravitational force, G = the gravitational constant, m(1)and m(2) are the two masses, and d*2 is the square of the distance between them.)

The application of this law describes the moon orbiting the Earth, the planets orbiting the sun, etc. Would anyone like to reformulate this law to describe a geocentric universe? Accelerating systems are accelerating in any inertial reference frame.

 

[lemmings]

It doesn't wobble, the universe does the wobbling. When looking at the solar system as a reference frame it must seem like the earth is orbiting the sun in order for the laws of gravitation and relativity to be fulfilled. But we know that all forces are relative, there is no physical difference between a Geocentric theory and a Heliocentric theory.

We know that the difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and that such a difference has no physical significance

(Hoyle 1975, cited in Willis 2000, 2).

all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them … Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true.

(Mach, E. 1921. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, p. 222.)

The heliocentric theory provides and excellent explanation as to why the stars and planets appear to wobble in the night sky, does the geocentric theory provide an explanation like this?

 

[Maxwell511]

all masses, all motion, indeed all forces are relative. There is no way to discern relative from absolute motion when we encounter them … Whenever modern writers infer an imaginary distinction between relative and absolute motion from a Newtonian framework, they do not stop to think that the Ptolemaic and Copernican are both equally true.

(Mach, E. 1921. Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt, p. 222.)

I have a bit of a suspicion that this quote is actually from 1883 and predates special/general relativity and all modern understanding of the interplay of masses, motion and forces.

My first clue is that you are "quoting Mach" from 1921. Unless your geocentric model allows for communication with people that have been dead for five years, I doubt Mach said that in 1921.

Ernst Mach (1838-1916) RIP. Mach was even dead before Einstein published "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity".

My second clue is that "Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwicklung historisch-kritisch dargestellt" has been reprinted numerous times including in 1921 with the first edition being in 1883.

 

[lemmings]

RichardT, I would still like you to admit that the source that you used in post 23, Answers in Genesis and Dr. Humphreys, made an outright lie to support Geocentricism.

 

[LeeC]

The bible tells me that the sun goes around the earth, and that the earth doesn't move.

This is a clue... a hint

ALL the evidence points to the Earth going around the sun (remember the stellar parallax you have been unable to answer with your Geocentric view? This proves your view is WRONG!!! ).

So either the evidence is wrong (which you have to prove it to be so since God would not joke around now would He?)

Or admit that the Genesis story is a joke (sorry myth)

Time to admit the bible is wrong on this one my friend...

Make the change; take the first step to freedom.

Or prove the evidence and me wrong.

Off you go – which ever you think is easiest.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

Stellar Parallax works because the stars actually move forward and back.

Sorry!!! I missed this the first time! LOL

You have created even more problems for yourself.

Did you know that the European "Hipparcos" astrometric satellite has measured the parallax for over 110,000 near-by stars - so to keep the Earth at the centre of the solar system - you have to push backward and forward 110,000 stars!!! With just the right amount – remember to move them forward the first half of the year, then to move them back the 2nd half. (How do these stars know about the Earth year? Why would God do this dance trick, since it could only be measure in the last 200 years?) Oh – and this number of 110,000 stars will get worse for you when the next generation of satellites are sent up.

WOW – so this is all excellent stuff. Have you any explanations though how your theory might work? Or are you just happy with the “Magic man done it!”

So how do the stars move "backward and forward"?
How does a star "know" how much to move?
How does a star "know" when to move forward, and when to move back?
How does a star “know” about the Earth year?

I could go on - but that will do for a start.

And what about the transit of Venus across the Sun and the solar parallax?
How do you explain this?

I was wondering if someone could check that out for me because I'm lazy. (currently listening to Dawkins vs. Lennox)

Lazy? This does not describe the half of it.

Lee

 

[LeeC]

Hi Nails,

Will be short because cricket is on the TV - England!

Earth is not the most significant part of the solar system, the sun is by far the most significant part.

the sun, then Jupiter, then Saturn... the list goes on.

But there is a difference, because in your model the earth is stationary. If it doesn't move, why does it wobble

Precession!!! I'm glad you raised that. Due to the Earth's wobble - the star's position from the Earth's view has changed over time - recorded in history.
(The Earth goes through one complete precession cycle in a period of approximately 25,800 years)

and so give us seasons

The angle of the Earth does indeed give us the seasons… (This is why when the North is in winter, the south is summer) and due to the elliptical orbit we also have another north/south divided because when the south is in summer, the Earth is closest to the sun (I think it is this way round)

I wonder how a stationary, geocentric Earther would answer this?

Must go

Lee

 

[LeeC]

England doing rubbish... why did I rush?

Lee

 

[LeeC]

The heliocentric theory provides and excellent explanation as to why the stars and planets appear to wobble in the night sky, does the geocentric theory provide an explanation like this?

No!
But I would love to hear it

Lee

 

[Blayz]

England doing rubbish... why did I rush?

Lee

Gee. Who would have thought.

Cheer up, I am sure they are doing better than the PASTING England will get in the rugby on the weekend.