Has Geocentrism become less popular?

[Shemjaza]

I feel like there used to be more discussion of Geocentrism around. (By Geocentrism I mean the idea that while the Earth is more or less spherical, at least the rest of the solar system (and possibly the whole cosmos) orbits around a fixed Earth).

Have Geocentrists just accepted the Heliocentric structure of the Solar system while maintaining other unconventional ideas like Young Earth Creationism or space skepticism; or have they gone all the way into the almost universal science denial of Flat Earth ideas?

 

[Mark Quayle]

It's been displaced by a worldview of egocentrism.

 

[Shemjaza]

It's been displaced by a worldview of egocentrism.

I dunno, they seem to be pretty compatible belief systems.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I dunno, they seem to be pretty compatible belief systems.

I guess you got a point there.

 

[AV1611VET]

Has Geocentrism become less popular?

Looks can be deceiving, can't they?

Can you demonstrate two horses, running side-by-side, with one running much faster than the other, yet they stay together?

 

[Sabertooth]

YEC does not obligate one to embrace geocentrism nor platygeism.
The doctrine of Original Sin is still viable in the heliocentric & spherogeic models.

If there is no Original Sin, there would be no need for the Incarnation, His death, burial nor resurrection.
Besides, Jesus, Himself, acknowledged Adam, Eve & Noah (even Jonah) as literal, historical figures.

 

[Sabertooth]

FYI, heliocentrism was first published (1543) by a Catholic cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus (though it had been proposed 18 centuries earlier by Aristarchus of Samos, an ancient Greek astronomer).

Copernican heliocentrism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Mark Quayle]

FYI, heliocentrism was first published (1543) by a Catholic cleric, Nicolaus Copernicus (though it had been proposed 18 centuries earlier by Aristarchus of Samos, an ancient Greek astronomer).

Copernican heliocentrism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Not that it is particularly relevant, but I've noticed a form of heliocentrism still evident in the reasoning of cosmologists, as they seem to measure everything by degree of redshift relative to ourselves. That may not be a fair statement if left without mention of the other things they DO take into account, but it still strikes me, all the same.

 

[Joy]

MOD HAT ON

This Thread has Moved

From Physical & Life Sciences

To Non-Mainstream and Controversial Science

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Halbhh]

degree of redshift relative to ourselves

While of course we are literally the observers, so that redshift is relative to us (naturally the only possible kind of 'redshift' is that relative to a point of observation), the standard conception is that anywhere else -- any location in the Universe -- would also see the same degree of redshift of distant galaxies (the same proportionality: the degree of redshift relative to distance) alike to what we see from our point of observation. Does that clear up the question? (if you'd like to hear how astronomers figured out the relation between degree of redshift and distance, that's an interesting topic, and it begins with just pure trigonometry for nearby objects like nearby stars and then progresses from that to next using a ladder of standard objects that have known brightness so that their apparent brightness indicates their distance)

 

[Jipsah]

Looks can be deceiving, can't they?

Can you demonstrate two horses, running side-by-side, with one running much faster than the other, yet they stay together?

And especially when one of them is an ostrich.

 

[AV1611VET]

And especially when one of them is an ostrich.

That was a serious question.

It's done all the time.

Two horses running side-by-side, one running much faster than the other, yet neither passes the other one.

In fact, it's basic physics.

 

[dlamberth]

That was a serious question.

It's done all the time.

Two horses running side-by-side, one running much faster than the other, yet neither passes the other one.

In fact, it's basic physics.

Way back in High School I ran the mile and yes, often I found myself running side by side with the others, but still loosing because I just wasn't as fast as them. It is basic physics of the circle.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is basic physics of the circle.

Bingo!

The outer horsies on the merry-go-round go round faster than the inner horsies, yet the two don't pass.

Thus my point:

Some things are not necessarily as they appear.

The earth APPEARS geocentric, but is not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

While of course we are literally the observers, so that redshift is relative to us (naturally the only possible kind of 'redshift' is that relative to a point of observation), the standard conception is that anywhere else -- any location in the Universe -- would also see the same degree of redshift of distant galaxies (the same proportionality: the degree of redshift relative to distance) alike to what we see from our point of observation. Does that clear up the question? (if you'd like to hear how astronomers figured out the relation between degree of redshift and distance, that's an interesting topic, and it begins with just pure trigonometry for nearby objects like nearby stars and then progresses from that to next using a ladder of standard objects that have known brightness so that their apparent brightness indicates their distance)

Yeah, I understood distances, but, for eg, it doesn't make sense to me how, if, let's say, "east" of us a galaxy is receding (relative to us) at, let's say, 1/4 the speed of light, and "west" of us, another is receding relative to us at 1/4 the speed of light, how an observer in the one galaxy would see the other galaxy with the same degree of redshift that we do. But maybe that isn't what you were saying. I do see how very distant galaxies might seem about the same for any Milky Way observer, or maybe even any observer in our local galaxy cluster.

The two galaxies, supposing each to be receding relative to us, at 3/4 the speed of light, should be, according to intuition, be receding relative to each other, at more than the speed of light. But people keep telling me it is impossible to exceed the speed of light. I keep wanting to ask them, "The speed of light relative to WHAT?" THAT, I still do not understand.

 

[Jipsah]

In fact, it's basic physics.

And an octrich is a bird.

The Bible says it, that settles it.

With a liberal use of "...but what that really means is..." right? <Grin>

 

[AV1611VET]

With a liberal use of "...but what that really means is..." right?

I would venture to say that "what that really means is" is not a "liberal use of" application.

F=ma, for example, is not a "liberal use" of Newton's second law of motion.

 

[Jipsah]

I would venture to say that "what that really means is" is not a "liberal use of" application.

F=ma, for example, is not a "liberal use" of Newton's second law of motion.

I was ta;ling about your apparent claim to scriptural literalism. Never met a "literalist" who reallly was, but that's a different thread, innit?

 

[AV1611VET]

I was talking about your apparent claim to scriptural literalism. Never met a "literalist" who reallly was, but that's a different thread, innit?

Is there a problem with taking the Bible literally?

 

[Jipsah]

Is there a problem with taking the Bible literally?

The people who claim to take it literally are also the folks who say "but what that really means is..." the most. I'll start a thread on that in GT if you'd like.