Creationism and Geocentricity

[Jase]

I do, and the bible does.

Then how do we get our year and seasons? What causes the temperature change during the seasons?

And since you believe the Earth is stationary based on the Bible, do you think the Earth is flat too, since the Bible says it is?

Perhaps we should have this moved to the Creation/Evolution forum to discuss it further?

 

[Jase]

Can you seriously prove it isn't? If you find your self getting stuck have a read of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Yes we can.

 

[Markus6]

Yes we can.

Awesome, fire away. I really would suggest reading about Special Relativity first though. If you're still confident then I would like you to prove to me that the Earth isn't stationary.

 

[RichardT]

Then how do we get our year and seasons? What causes the temperature change during the seasons?

And since you believe the Earth is stationary based on the Bible, do you think the Earth is flat too, since the Bible says it is?

Perhaps we should have this moved to the Creation/Evolution forum to discuss it further?

You are just like the philosophers who were from Alexandria egypt...

Anyway, the earth is not a flat earth book, any verse you throw at me can be explained for a spherical earth...

For example, scoffers will tell me that in Genesis God says that the moon is a lesser light, and that would mean that it would supposedly omit its own light. But that's not true, God knew that the light ommited from the moon was the reflection of the greater light, which is the sun, as we can see from

Job 25:5

Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

 

[Jase]

You are just like the philosophers who were from Alexandria egypt...

Anyway, the earth is not a flat earth book, any verse you throw at me can be explained for a spherical earth...

For example, scoffers will tell me that in Genesis God says that the moon is a lesser light, and that would mean that it would supposedly omit its own light. But that's not true, God knew that the light ommited from the moon was the reflection of the greater light, which is the sun, as we can see from

Job 25:5

Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight.

And why does the Bible say the Earth is a circle, has ends, has corners, and sits atop pillars?

And if you're so confident about the geocentric theory, why don't we continue this discussion in the debate forum?

 

[RichardT]

And why does the Bible say the Earth is a circle, has ends, has corners, and sits atop pillars?

the bible doesn't say the earth is a circle, The original Hebrew word for circle is "khug". It meant "roundness" or "sphericity". So you got beat here.

When the bible talks about the "ends of the earth", it is talking about the entire earth. No problem here.

Now obviously, if I did believe in a flat earth, there would be a contradiction between "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" if I interpreted it your way... But the scoffer's claim to 4 corners of the earth refering to a flat earth is ill found..

There are many ways in which God the Holy Spirit could have said corner. Any of the following Hebrew words could have been used:

• 
  [*]Pinoh is used in reference to the cornerstone.
  [*]Paioh means "a geometric corner"
  [*]Ziovyoh means "right angle" or "corner"
  [*]Krnouth refers to a projecting corner.
  [*]Paamouth - If the Lord wanted to convey the idea of a square, four-cornered earth, the Hebrew word paamouth could have been used. Paamouth means square.

[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica, Swiss, Sans Serif]Instead, the Holy Spirit selected the word kanaph, conveying the idea of extremity.


[/FONT]

 

[Jase]

the bible doesn't say the earth is a circle, The original Hebrew word for circle is "khug". It meant "roundness" or "sphericity". So you got beat here.

The word is chuwg. And considering what the ancient Hebrews viewed the Earth to look like, sphere apparently isn't what they had envisioned.

When the bible talks about the "ends of the earth", it is talking about the entire earth. No problem here.

What do you mean whole Earth? The Earth has no ends. Spheres don't have an end or corners.

Now obviously, if I did believe in a flat earth, there would be a contradiction between "circle of the earth" and "four corners of the earth" if I interpreted it your way... But the scoffer's claim to 4 corners of the earth refering to a flat earth is ill found..

If you believe the Earth is the center of the universe, so too should you believe the Earth is flat. Apparently you aren't much of a literalist afterall.

Nonethless, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe is as patently absurd, and false as the idea that the Earth is flat. The fact that you believe the former, but reject the latter really emphasizes your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[RichardT]

The word is chuwg. And considering what the ancient Hebrews viewed the Earth to look like, sphere apparently isn't what they had envisioned.

What do you mean whole Earth? The Earth has no ends. Spheres don't have an end or corners.

If you believe the Earth is the center of the universe, so too should you believe the Earth is flat. Apparently you aren't much of a literalist afterall.

Nonethless, the idea that the Earth is the center of the universe is as patently absurd, and false as the idea that the Earth is flat. The fact that you believe the former, but reject the latter really emphasizes your intellectual dishonesty.

Have you heard of einstein's theory of relativity?

 

[Jase]

Have you heard of einstein's theory of relativity?

Yes, what about it?

 

[RichardT]

Yes, what about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

 

[Jase]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

Was there something in particular you wanted me to see, or do you just think it's neat to link a massive article on relativity? Ever heard of Parallax? Pretty hard to explain if the Earth doesn't move.

 

[Markus6]

Was there something in particular you wanted me to see, or do you just think it's neat to link a massive article on relativity? Ever heard of Parallax? Pretty hard to explain if the Earth doesn't move.

Albert Einstein's 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" introduced the special theory of relativity. Special relativity considers that observers in inertial reference frames, which are in uniform motion relative to one another, cannot perform any experiment to determine which one of them is "stationary".

i.e. You can't prove the Earth isn't stationary.

Ever heard of Parallax? Pretty hard to explain if the Earth doesn't move.

Parallax, or more accurately motion parallax (Greek: παραλλαγή (parallagé) = alteration) is the change of angular position of two stationary points relative to each other as seen by an observer, due to the motion of an observer. Simply put, it is the apparent shift of an object against a background due to a change in observer position.

Looks like for parallax you need to stationary points. Hold on, special relativity says you can never prove a point is stationary...

 

[Smidlee]

What do you mean whole Earth? The Earth has no ends. Spheres don't have an end or corners.

Yes "earth" can have corner and ends since it has different meanings. Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth..." Earth in scripture doesn't always referring to the Planet Earth. Continent could easily replace the word "earth" is many places in scripture. (thus someone came from the far ends of the continent/earth.) Also the word "world" has different meaning in scriptures. Even today "earth" can simply mean dirt.
*********************

Here a question to the critics here: If a cop pull you over and said you were going 65 in a 55 mph zone, was you literally going 65 mph? Would you argue to him that the earth isn't stationary but going around the sun so you are going a lot faster than 65 mph?

 

[Markus6]

Here a question to the critics here: If a cop pull you over and said you were going 65 in a 55 mph zone, was you literally going 65 mph? Would you argue to him that the earth isn't stationary but going around the sun so you are going a lot faster than 65 mph?

That's assuming the sun is stationary. Which it isn't. Even by that logic if you were driving in the opposite direction you would have been going at negative a lot faster than 65 mph.

 

[Jase]

i.e. You can't prove the Earth isn't stationary.

Sure you can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Kind of hard to argue the pendulum. You can see the pendulum move based on the Earth's movement due to the coriolis effect.


And again, let's take this to the debate forum so you guys can actually present your evidence to an unbiased crowd. Are you willing to do that, or are you not confident enough in your theory to actually debate it?

 

[Jase]

Yes "earth" can have corner and ends since it has different meanings. Genesis 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth..." Earth in scripture doesn't always referring to the Planet Earth. Continent could easily replace the word "earth" is many places in scripture. (thus someone came from the far ends of the continent/earth.) Also the word "world" has different meaning in scriptures. Even today "earth" can simply mean dirt.

It is used in the Bible enough times to denote that it is refering to more than just land.

 

[Deamiter]

i.e. You can't prove the Earth isn't stationary.


Looks like for parallax you need to stationary points. Hold on, special relativity says you can never prove a point is stationary...

Of course you can't "prove" anything. I mean, you could go with the extreme conspiracy theories and say that we all live in the matrix and nothing is real... but assuming that our observations are accurate (otherwise who cares about ANY theory based on our observations) we can say that the universe makes no sense if the Earth is stationary.

Yes, for parallax, you need two stationary points. Now as the Earth appears to revolve around the sun, we see distant stars moving exactly as if they are stationary points a certain distance away. Have you considered what a complex and totally unexplainable motion these stars would have to have in order to SIMULATE parallax???

Not only would they have to be moving around the earth every day at the same speed as the sun, but they would have to move back and forth with respect to each other in exactly the interval you'd expect in the parallax effect. Now you've got stars revolving wildly around the Earth and slowly oscillating back and forth...

It's the same set of hoops that people jumped through to justify a geocentric solar system long ago. Yes, you COULD model the entire system as planets revolving around the Earth -- and also turning on tiny little rings to produce retrograde motion (look it up if you haven't heard of it). But gravity and a heliocentric solar system explain it with the added benefit of using a known force, not a complex set of circles within circles.

We've used our understanding of gravity to predict and direct satellites and probes to distant planets and beyond the solar system. Our same understanding of gravity explains a heliocentric solar system. If gravity were not the prime force in the solar system and the Earth were stationary, you would NOT be able to direct satellites and probes as we do.

Or... perhaps we live in the matrix, and nothing we see or observe is accurate. But if so, who cares? Our observations are used every day in GPS, satellite observation of the Earth and missile launches throughout the world. Perhaps we live in the matrix, but if so, we're describing the rules of the matrix, and now that we've observed those rules, a stationary Earth makes no sense.

As a frame of reference, yes, we can assume a stationary Earth. But it really does make no sense to have the sun, the planets, the stars etc... revolving around a central Earth.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sure you can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum

Kind of hard to argue the pendulum. You can see the pendulum move based on the Earth's movement due to the coriolis effect.


And again, let's take this to the debate forum so you guys can actually present your evidence to an unbiased crowd. Are you willing to do that, or are you not confident enough in your theory to actually debate it?

it this the best physics evidence against geocentricism or is the most accessible and understandable?

several times i've seen excellent physics/astronomy profs give this example and i'm wondering if i ought to promote it to the best evidence in my notebook, however my knowledge of physics and astronomy is not good enough to know if there exists better evidence that is just a little bit too hard for most of us to understand so it is not quoted or pointed to on forums like this.

tia.

 

[Jase]

it this the best physics evidence against geocentricism or is the most accessible and understandable?

several times i've seen excellent physics/astronomy profs give this example and i'm wondering if i ought to promote it to the best evidence in my notebook, however my knowledge of physics and astronomy is not good enough to know if there exists better evidence that is just a little bit too hard for most of us to understand so it is not quoted or pointed to on forums like this.

tia.

My understanding is that it's the easiest to actually look at. That link shows the pendulum in the Pantheon in Rome. You can actually watch the pendulum change motion over a 12 hour period due to the rotation of the Earth.

There are numerous other evidences but like you, my knowledge of physics is limited. Parallax, abberation of starlight, etc. are other evidences, but they confuse me

 

[Jase]

i.e. You can't prove the Earth isn't stationary.

Btw, the Theory of Relativity does not apply to the rotation or orbit of the Earth.

That Einstein quote you posted says that inertial frames of reference are equal which only applies to things moving at a constant speed without changing direction. The Earth is moving in different directions, which means it isn't an inertial frame of reference. That quote also states that the observers must be in uniform motion relative to one another. The Earth is not in uniform motion with the sun, even if it were standing still. Special Relativity has nothing to do with the Earth's orbital pattern, so you can't use it as evidence of a stationary Earth. Sorry.

And don't forget, based on parallax, in order for the stars and sun to be revolving around the Earth, the Sun would take much longer than the Earth does, meaning our years would be significantly longer, and stars would have to travel faster than the speed of light which the Theory of Relativity you are clinging to says can't happen.