Creationism and Geocentricity

[Wadsworth]

Wow..
and
Wow.

It never dawned on me that there were educated people out there who believe that the earth is motionless and/or the center of the universe, galaxy, and solar system. Amazing.

I do understand that it takes all kinds to make the world go round.. Or stand still.. Whichever.

So, if the world wasn't spinning at 1070 mi/hr we wouldn't feel the upward velocity of 505 mi/hr that we feel due to angular momentum (on the equator), and we would have grossly overestimated the strength of gravity. And as previously mentioned, our satellites would go flying off into space. We never would have made it to the moon. etc etc.

If everything including all of the indescribably vast amounts of stellar object were rotating around the earth the objects that are billions of light years away would have to move at such tremendous velocities ABOVE light speed we wouldn't be able to see them. There light would not come inward towards us because their angular velocities/acceleration would be overwhelming.. Blah blah it just wouldn't work.

Things form in a natural way. You probably don't want to hear this, but we are made of star dust. Gasses out in the emptiness of space group together and form more dense objects which in turn suck in more gas to form stars. Stars have nuclear reactions eventually changing gasses into heavier elements which are dispersed throughout the universe through violent explosions (making us). Stars group together to form galaxies. It all fits together in the most beautiful culmination that makes me melt every time I think about it. Oh to see the outward beauty of God’s flawless creation.

The earth harbors our life but it is not some universal anchor. We are TINEY, and no stars, much less galaxies rotate around us.



Here are some other things that are caused by Earths rotation:

Hurricanes movements: (woops don't have enough posts to post a link. You'll have to copy paste these into your browser.)
http://www.applet-magic.com/hurricane.htm

Equatorial Bulge:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath182.htm

http://www.spa3.k12.sc.us/WebQuests/New%20Planet%20WebQuest/saturn.html

Earths Magnetic Field:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Magnetosphere/earth_magnetic_field.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050106090451.htm

Other Goodies:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/movearth.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ <-- check this one out daily!!

I need to spend some more time on this subject..

I understand the argument, and I've heard it before. "If any part of the bible is wrong, it must all be wrong" etc. I truly don't know enough about the scripture to say religious Geocentrics are simply misinterpreting certain scripture or what. I do know one thing though. We Earthians are very much in motion. Down to our very core. Down to the smallest building blocks of our very bodies. We all move and rotate. Whomever/whatever has the greater force (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravitational) the others will rotate around.

In our case it was Jesus THE Son, and the sun itself.



Also..
http://www.applet-magic.com/hurricane.htm
I need to do some research on all of these different beliefs. What do the acronyms stand for?

TE?
YEC?
etc..

 

[Jase]

TE?
YEC?
etc..

TE = Theistic Evolutionist. One who believes God used evolution to create life's diversity. The closest a theist will get to accepting all of mainstream science.

YEC = Young Earth Creationist. Takes Genesis literally. Earth was formed in 6 24 hour days, approx. 6,000 years ago based on Bishop Usshers geneology caculation which puts the creation of the Earth at 4004 B.C. They also typically hold to a literal global flood that happened around 2300 B.C.

OEC - Old Earth Creationist. Similar to YEC except they agree that the Earth is older than 6,000 years.

Gap theorist - a Creationist who believes there was a large time gap between Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.


Here is a good site which explains all the Creationist views:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html

 

[Wadsworth]

Thanks Jase

 

[Markus6]

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

I'll just do one more before I retire as a geocentrist:

At either the North Pole or South Pole, the plane of oscillation of a pendulum remains pointing in the same direction with respect to the fixed stars, while the Earth rotates underneath it, taking one sidereal day to complete a rotation.

Again you need to prove the stars are fixed for this to work.

Have you considered what a complex and totally unexplainable motion these stars would have to have in order to SIMULATE parallax???

Since when does it have to be simple to be right?

It's the same set of hoops that people jumped through to justify a geocentric solar system long ago.

But once you've jumped through those hoops you have justified it. As you said yourself it's just a model.

Our same understanding of gravity explains a heliocentric solar system.

Our understanding of gravity explains why a heliocentric solar system is simplest. The sun is far more massive than any other body in the solar system so we can neglect the gravitational forces between the planets and get a fairly accurate model. If there was another body about as massive as the sun then heliocentric wouldn't cut it. If the Earth was the most massive we'd all be geocentrists. We can still use a geocentric model, in fact it's still used in navigation.

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.

Doesn't make sense because it's not pretty? Do I not make sense because I'm not pretty?

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.

Of course we're in the sun's orbit. And the sun is whizzing it's way around a galaxy. And the galaxy is flying away from the first ground zero. But how do we know ground zero (the location of the big bang) isn't moving and all these movements and up to give a stationary earth? I'm not really a geocentrist (though I am a theist so i guess I believe we're the centre of God's universe). My point is:

The geocentrist views are held in the awareness that essentially all modern scientists agree that there is no evidence that the universe has any center. Philosophically, since the concepts of center and absolute motion are not clearly defined and no evidence distinguishing any motion of the earth from motion of the universe is available, geocentrism in and of itself cannot be falsified and is therefore not a scientific theory.

It's just a model!

 

[rmwilliamsll]

It's just a model!


i believe you are confusing the terms model and point of view.
geocentricism is a point of view, perhaps even a frame of reference, it is however not a scientific model, at least not a valid one, having been shown to be wrong several hundred years ago.

 

[Markus6]

i believe you are confusing the terms model and point of view.
geocentricism is a point of view, perhaps even a frame of reference, it is however not a scientific model, at least not a valid one, having been shown to be wrong several hundred years ago.

From my beloved wikipedia for a scientific model:

Idealized here means that the model may make explicit assumptions that are known to be false in some detail.

As there is nothing about geocentrism that is known to be false (as it's unfalsifiable) I guess it isn't a model, it is a P.O.V. Concession made...
While I'm here:

TE = Theistic Evolutionist. One who believes God used evolution to create life's diversity. The closest a theist will get to accepting all of mainstream science.

I slightly object to this. I'm a TE and I accept all of mainstream science. I don't think there is any scientific theory that I would not accept because of my religious views. Science is the study of God's creation.

 

[Jase]

I slightly object to this. I'm a TE and I accept all of mainstream science. I don't think there is any scientific theory that I would not accept because of my religious views. Science is the study of God's creation.

I kind of worded it wrong, but that's what I meant. I was pointing out that Theistic Evolutionists accept all of mainstream science, making them the closest to a non-theist in terms of science, as opposed to a YEC who accepts almost no science.

But why are you arguing Geocentrism if you are a Theistic evolutionist?

 

[Markus6]

I kind of worded it wrong, but that's what I meant. I was pointing out that Theistic Evolutionists accept all of mainstream science, making them the closest to a non-theist in terms of science, as opposed to a YEC who accepts almost no science.[QUOTE]

Non-theists can also be completely ignorant when it comes to science so "closest to a non-theist" sounds a bit odd. I don't mean to have a go at you. I'm just wary of anything that might suggest that non-theists are more intelligent than theists. YEC are just a minority that make us look bad. The unintelligent minority of non-theists is just quieter.

But why are you arguing Geocentrism if you are a Theistic evolutionist?

I can be a geocentrist AND a TE if i want! I can accept all of mainstream science and be a geocentrist if I want, because geocentrism isn't science. It's more of a theological/philosophical stand point. I believe we are the centre (or focus) of God's universe and I don't believe in aliens so Earth holds all the universe's intelligent life. That gives me geocentric leanings. I also don't want people to just assume geocentrism is completely wrong and scientifically disproven. But most of all I just like being awkward.

 

[Assyrian]

Shouldn't that be anthropocentric then?

 

[RichardT]

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?

The Foucault pendulum has already been explained by geocentrists, I don't understand it yet, so I leave it to Bouw..

 

[RichardT]

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.

nope your completely wrong, einstein's theroy of special relativity works perfectly here.

Also, stars don't have to be "billions of light years away", thanks to geocentricity.

http://www.geocentricbible.com/id25.htm

I don't understand paralax, so I won't comment on it.

 

[RichardT]

Wow..
and
Wow.

It never dawned on me that there were educated people out there who believe that the earth is motionless and/or the center of the universe, galaxy, and solar system. Amazing.

I do understand that it takes all kinds to make the world go round.. Or stand still.. Whichever.

So, if the world wasn't spinning at 1070 mi/hr we wouldn't feel the upward velocity of 505 mi/hr that we feel due to angular momentum (on the equator), and we would have grossly overestimated the strength of gravity. And as previously mentioned, our satellites would go flying off into space. We never would have made it to the moon. etc etc.

If everything including all of the indescribably vast amounts of stellar object were rotating around the earth the objects that are billions of light years away would have to move at such tremendous velocities ABOVE light speed we wouldn't be able to see them. There light would not come inward towards us because their angular velocities/acceleration would be overwhelming.. Blah blah it just wouldn't work.

Things form in a natural way. You probably don't want to hear this, but we are made of star dust. Gasses out in the emptiness of space group together and form more dense objects which in turn suck in more gas to form stars. Stars have nuclear reactions eventually changing gasses into heavier elements which are dispersed throughout the universe through violent explosions (making us). Stars group together to form galaxies. It all fits together in the most beautiful culmination that makes me melt every time I think about it. Oh to see the outward beauty of God’s flawless creation.

The earth harbors our life but it is not some universal anchor. We are TINEY, and no stars, much less galaxies rotate around us.



Here are some other things that are caused by Earths rotation:

Hurricanes movements: (woops don't have enough posts to post a link. You'll have to copy paste these into your browser.)
http://www.applet-magic.com/hurricane.htm

Equatorial Bulge:
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath182.htm

http://www.spa3.k12.sc.us/WebQuests/New%20Planet%20WebQuest/saturn.html

Earths Magnetic Field:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Magnetosphere/earth_magnetic_field.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050106090451.htm

Other Goodies:
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit4/movearth.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ <-- check this one out daily!!

I need to spend some more time on this subject..

I understand the argument, and I've heard it before. "If any part of the bible is wrong, it must all be wrong" etc. I truly don't know enough about the scripture to say religious Geocentrics are simply misinterpreting certain scripture or what. I do know one thing though. We Earthians are very much in motion. Down to our very core. Down to the smallest building blocks of our very bodies. We all move and rotate. Whomever/whatever has the greater force (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, gravitational) the others will rotate around.

In our case it was Jesus THE Son, and the sun itself.



Also..
http://www.applet-magic.com/hurricane.htm
I need to do some research on all of these different beliefs. What do the acronyms stand for?

TE?
YEC?
etc..

If everything including all of the indescribably vast amounts of stellar object were rotating around the earth the objects that are billions of light years away would have to move at such tremendous velocities ABOVE light speed we wouldn't be able to see them. There light would not come inward towards us because their angular velocities/acceleration would be overwhelming.. Blah blah it just wouldn't work.

Once again, http://www.geocentricbible.com/id25.htm

Things form in a natural way. You probably don't want to hear this, but we are made of star dust. Gasses out in the emptiness of space group together and form more dense objects which in turn suck in more gas to form stars. Stars have nuclear reactions eventually changing gasses into heavier elements which are dispersed throughout the universe through violent explosions (making us). Stars group together to form galaxies. It all fits together in the most beautiful culmination that makes me melt every time I think about it. Oh to see the outward beauty of God’s flawless creation.

lol... abiogenesis?http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Abiogenesis

 

[RichardT]

It's just a model!


i believe you are confusing the terms model and point of view.
geocentricism is a point of view, perhaps even a frame of reference, it is however not a scientific model, at least not a valid one, having been shown to be wrong several hundred years ago.

Wrong, Geocentrism was proved wrong hundreds of years ago, but Galelao(sp) had no proof against geocentriciy.

http://www.geocentricity.com/ba1/fresp/index.html

What is geocentricity?

[FONT=&quot]The astute reader will note that Faulkner fights against geocentrism, not geocentricity. Faulkner says &#8220;To distinguish modern geocentrism from ancient geocentrism, Bouw has coined the term &#8216;geocentricity&#8217; for the former.&#8221; Of course, Faulkner doesn&#8217;t go on to explain the distinction, choosing to dismiss both the term and the model and to combat geocentrism instead. Needless to say, he succeeds in debunking the ancient form of geocentrism, just as Bouw had in his book. Having done so, the unwary reader is left with the impression that geocentricity is identical with geocentrism, and that Faulkner has dispatched geocentricity once and for all. However, very little of the modern geocentricity is even mentioned in Faulkner&#8217;s paper, let alone dispatched. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Apparently, none of today&#8217;s dictionaries have either word&#8211;heliocentrism or geocentrism&#8211;in them. Even the original twelve-volume Oxford English Dictionary (OED), finished in 1928, lacks both words.[12] It does have geocentricism and heliocentricism in it; both referring to the geocentric and heliocentric theories respectively. There is such a word as heliocentricity, meaning having a heliocentric quality, and it was first used in 1865 by astronomer Francis Hall.[13] [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When I coined the word geocentrism, I meant it to express belief in the ancient model of the cosmos with the earth at the center of the universe, neither in orbit not rotating; a model that divided the universe into layers. Geocentrism, as any &#8211;ism, divides into dissociated, differential, or distinctive parts. In its purest form, geocentrism is associated with the belief that the universe was centered on the earth and that the planets moved along crystalline (i.e., clear, invisible) spheres. The planet was not fixed on the sphere but was fixed to another smaller sphere that rolled between two crystalline spheres, one fixing the outer boundary of the orbit and the other the inner. That smaller sphere, called an epicycle, was later replaced by another pair of spheres with the planet on a still smaller sphere which, in turn, rolled between the smaller spheres (forming another epicycle), which, in turn, rolled between the huge inner and outer planetary motion sphere. This is pictured above. Note that you are looking down upon the solar system in this picture. Because it is so hard to visualize the three-dimensional view, astronomers, Faulkner among them, revert to a two-dimensional view, but that was not the actual model envisioned by the ancients. It is, however, easier to work with mathematically.[14] The simplest nesting of spheres was that of the sun, pictured below.[15][/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A representation of the complicated crystalline spheres model is the one that generally comes to mind when the word &#8220;geocentrism&#8221; is uttered. The reader can readily see that the epicycle of Venus in the above figure does not allow it to have phases like the moon and as observed in a telescope. What Galileo disproved with the phases of Venus was not the sum total of all geocentric models, as Faulkner erroneously implies, but most specifically the crystalline spheres model, that is, geocentrism in its classical definition. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]&#8220;Bouw completely misconstrues Galileo&#8217;s third evidence for heliocentrism, the phases of Venus,&#8221;[16] Faulkner wrote. He then claims that Ptolemy&#8217;s model, as envisioned at the time, could not account for the phases of Venus. He footnotes this with the number 37, which says to see p. 189 of Geocentricity. On page 189, one reads the following: &#8220;Actually, [Galileo&#8217;s] argument is correct as long as one insists on circular orbits.&#8221; Just how that differs from Faulkner's claim regarding the phases of Venus is not clear. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] What seems to have confused Faulkner is that &#8220;Bouw&#8221; claimed that the proof was not definitive. The Ptolemaic model can be made to account for the phases of Venus, Faulkner to the contrary. The ancients had no idea of the distances to the planets, moon, and sun. If one takes the radii to the deferents and epicycles to be actual distances, then the Ptolemaic system can be adjusted to take the phases of Venus into account (see figure at right where the distances are in millions of miles). Faulkner claims that in Galileo&#8217;s day &#8220;all celestial objects orbited the earth.&#8221;[17] According to historians of science, however, that is false. At the time that Galileo made his observations of Venus, the Tychonic system and the Copernican system were neck and neck in terms of acceptance. Indeed, historians report that it was not until 1650 that the Copernican model clearly advanced in popularity over the Tychonic. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That Galileo chose not to mention the Tychonic model was apparently done by design. He had the same attitude that Faulkner endorsed in his &#8220;Tychonian versus Ptolemaic geocentric models&#8221; section.[18] There he twists and rejects Bouw&#8217;s claim that it is up to the challenger (heliocentrism) to the status quo (geocentrism, be it Ptolemaic or Tychonic) to prove itself better. He calls that &#8220;preposterous,&#8221; a &#8220;blatant,&#8221; &#8220;sloppy approach.&#8221; His pitch increases until he can hold it no longer and writes: &#8220;n a very late [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]chapter...Bouw explicitly discusses geocentric models. There is no heading for the Tychonian model, but there is one for the Ptolemaic model. The problem is, the discussion and diagram clearly represent the Tychonian model.&#8221;[19] In his footnote, he references pages 309-311 in Geocentricity. First of all, the Ptolemaic figure appears on page 115 and is clearly referenced in the cited chapter. The figure that appears in the chapter is the modified Ptolemaic model, similar to the one shown above. The description is of it, not the Tychonic model. True, in a sense, one could perceive it as the modified Tychonic model (at right), but there are no epicycles in the modified Tychonic model while there are epicycles in the modified Ptolemaic model. The original Tychonic model[20] (which has the stars centered on the earth instead of the sun) is presented on pages 173-177, and the modified Tychonic model is expounded on pages 225-239 in the context of observational &#8220;proofs&#8221; of heliocentrism. However, the phases of Venus are brought up again on pages 309-311, and apparently every time Bouw disputes Galileo&#8217;s supposed proofs against geocentrism, Faulkner is blinded. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How, then, does geocentrism differ from geocentricity? In geocentricity, the earth is static, but not necessarily at the center if the universe. In geocentricity the earth is actually offset from the geometric center of the universe. The earth is immobile as seen from outside the universe, that is, as seen from the third heaven, the location of the throne of God. (Note: a footstool is not a footstool if it is moving &#8211; Isa. 66:1.) And why heliocentrism instead of a-centricity or acentrism? Because the modern acentric model still divides the universe into unrelated sections; and because it was founded on the worship of the sun.[21] To model the modern universe one has quantum mechanics, relativity, electric theory, kinetics, and dynamics, not to mention thermodynamics. Geocentric models, mentioned in the same chapter Faulkner cites above, include after (half a page of text on the Ptolemaic model) the advanced potential models, Thirring&#8217;s models, Birkhoff&#8217;s model, Moon and Spencer&#8217;s geocentric model, Mach&#8217;s, Nightingale&#8217;s, Rosser&#8217;s explanation of Thiring&#8217;s models, and the Barbour and Bertotti model. Faulkner is incapable of handling these. Most of the models, especially the last, have good success explaining more than the dynamics (and kinematics in the process). They are more comprehensive models insofar as they take the gravitational field of the distant stars into consideration. The so-called fictitious forces, namely the Coriolis and centrifugal come out as real gravitational forces. The standard model isolates them (-isms them) from the gravitational field of the stars, that is, from the inertial field. Although the field is invoked to explain the phenomena, it does not appear in the derivation, which is strictly kinetic. Likewise, the geocentric models derive the Euler force as well as some relativistic terms, and even some quantum terms from the foundation of the first law of thermodynamics. That is why the term geocentricity was coined for the modern geostatic paradigm. The suffix &#8211;ity signifies the state or condition of. Hence, geocentricity signifies the state or condition of earth-centeredness. Specifically, it denotes the conditions necessary in the universe to keep the earth stationary and stable when seen from outside of the universe. It is an integrative model of the universe, a model that considers the universe as a whole instead of several parts. Today&#8217;s heliocentrism is rather behind the geocentric or Machian paradigm in its quest for the &#8220;unified field theory.&#8221;[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So Faulkner forbids Bouw to coin the word geocentricity to express the differences between the modern and ancient geocentric models. This, in turn, allows him to ignore the geocentric arguments and work only with the ancient straw man, geocentrism. Faulkner himself coins the contentless word geokineticism for today&#8217;s model whereas a perfectly good word, acentric, (with no center) is used by the researchers themselves.[/FONT]

 

[RichardT]

I kind of worded it wrong, but that's what I meant. I was pointing out that Theistic Evolutionists accept all of mainstream science, making them the closest to a non-theist in terms of science, as opposed to a YEC who accepts almost no science.

But why are you arguing Geocentrism if you are a Theistic evolutionist?

Because you can't prove heliocentrism!

 

[RichardT]

YEC are just a minority that make us look bad.

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Category:Responses_to_Anticreationists

No. YEC's have answers to pretty much all evolutionist critics to creationist claims. And Talk Origins have been shown to be LIERS many times!

If you read some of these, you'll realize that Creationists are actually not the dimwits you perceive them to be..

 

[Jase]

Because you can't prove heliocentrism!

Actually we can.

 

[Jase]

http://www.creationwiki.net/index.php?title=Category:Responses_to_Anticreationists

No. YEC's have answers to pretty much all evolutionist critics to creationist claims. And Talk Origins have been shown to be LIERS many times!

If you read some of these, you'll realize that Creationists are actually not the dimwits you perceive them to be..

YEC's have no answers to evolutionists. I've not met a single YEC who even understands what evolution is.

 

[Jase]

nope your completely wrong, einstein's theroy of special relativity works perfectly here.

Also, stars don't have to be "billions of light years away", thanks to geocentricity.

http://www.geocentricbible.com/id25.htm

I don't understand paralax, so I won't comment on it.

Actually Einstein's theory as you quoted it doesn't work since the Earth isn't a inertial frame of reference, nor is it in uniform motion relative to the Sun. Both are required for special relativity to apply.

And seeing as you don't understand Parallax, you obviously don't realize there are evidences against a stationary Earth. The stars we see in the sky would have to travel faster than the speed of light to be revolving around the Earth. According to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, that isn't possible.

And how do we keep Satellites in orbit, or send probes like Voyager to other planets? The path they take is based on the heliocentric model. They would not make it to their intended target if we followed a geocentric model. I'm sorry Richard, but there are way too many problems with the geocentric model.

Do you not accept the rotation of the Earth too, or do you merely object to it orbiting the Sun? If you reject the rotation of the Earth around it's axis, good luck expaning how the magnetic field or hurricane circulation works. Even the rotation of water in your toilet is based on the rotation of the Earth.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Wow..
and
Wow.

It never dawned on me that there were educated people out there who believe that the earth is motionless and/or the center of the universe, galaxy, and solar system. Amazing.

At least it's not flat.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Even the rotation of water in your toilet is based on the rotation of the Earth.


this is in snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.htm

it is false. the coriolis effect is minor when compared to the physical configuration of the sink/toilet etc.