Why I Am A Geocentrist

mercury moves much slower than light in solar system. can newtonian law explain the advancing perihelion of mercury?

Click to expand...

The center of mass is sufficiently within the sun's gravity well so that it is not in flat space-time. This is the second qualification I made.

No need for a mathematical proof, one of GR's assumption is all physical laws are equal, observed from an enertia frame (remember gravity isn't a force under GR). so the GR is so defined that the result of relative movements of earth and sun calculated by assuming earth is immobile and by assuming sun is immobile is equal.
Do you think GR is right? yes? then you don't need to check its assumption.

Click to expand...

Yes, and whether one "takes the reference frame of the Earth" or "the reference frame of the Sun" one finds that the center of rotation of the Solar System is a whole lot closer to the Sun than to the Earth, hence making it far more accurate to say that "the Earth moves around the Sun" and not vice-versa.

Pop quiz: is the Earth accelerating? In what direction?

ThaiDuykhang said:

GR assumes either can be considered immobile. either can be taken as an enertia frame since they both only under effects of gravity (which isn't a force in GR).

I'll not reply further on GR to you until you actually do some reading on it.

Click to expand...

<snort>
And how much time have you spent working out metric tensors, and doing permutations in index notation?

Your statements betray a rather serious misunderstanding of GR.
For a truly in depth understanding the classic is of course M,T & W
(which has added more authors in more recent editions).
For a reasonable intro some suggestions are:
A Short Course in General Relativity by Nightingale
or the relavent bits of:
The Classical Theory of Fields, Fourth Edition : Volume 2 (Course of Theoretical Physics Series) by E M Lifshitz, L D Landau
If you are allergic to calculus apparently
Gravity from the Ground Up : An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity by Bernard Schutz is pretty solid.

Myself, I used Ohanian (1st Ed.) which seemed pretty decent to me.

ThaiDuykhang said:

No need for a mathematical proof, one of GR's assumption is all physical laws are equal, observed from an enertia frame (remember gravity isn't a force under GR).

Click to expand...

What exactly do you think an inertial frame of reference is?
Why do you think labeling gravity as a non-force makes a difference?
Where did you gain your understanding of GR?

Very interesting thread. I have become intrigued with the concept of a geocentric earth as seemingly stated in scripture. My friend and I were talking about it the other day and I don't have the real answere so I thought I would ask you here.

When the earth is supposedly spinning around the sun would it not make sense that as different positions of the year you would always see a new panorama of stars as you look out of a telescope at night?

But I hear some people say you can always see the north star no matter where you are. Is this true? Is the north star always apparent no matter where you are on the globe and no matter what time of year it is?

Blessings to you in Jesus name

shernren said:

Yes, and whether one "takes the reference frame of the Earth" or "the reference frame of the Sun" one finds that the center of rotation of the Solar System is a whole lot closer to the Sun than to the Earth, hence making it far more accurate to say that "the Earth moves around the Sun" and not vice-versa.

Pop quiz: is the Earth accelerating? In what direction?

Click to expand...

1) Earth doesn't have to be the center of solar system to be the center of universe.
2) how large solar system is hasn't been clearly observed.

notto said:

What say you fellow young earth creationists? Do you support Narrow or are you an unbeliever?

Click to expand...

Narrow seems to smoketh the Blessed Pipe.


Why does the Bible use terms like "Sun goes down"?

That's what man in that day would be able to understand.

If God, instead saying, "Sun goes down", or someother variant, said, "The earth's rotation", do you think men of that day would understand such a concept?


Narrow, it's puff, puff, give, is it not?

epoheno said:

When the earth is supposedly spinning around the sun would it not make sense that as different positions of the year you would always see a new panorama of stars as you look out of a telescope at night?

But I hear some people say you can always see the north star no matter where you are. Is this true? Is the north star always apparent no matter where you are on the globe and no matter what time of year it is?

Blessings to you in Jesus name

Click to expand...

Indeed, if the sun were orbiting the Earth, in order to have seasonal changes in the stars, you'd have to have the stars all orbiting the Earth too. Presumably in a huge hollow sphere as the ancient Hebrews believed... Of course that's been visually disproven, but that's another topic.

The north star is ONLY visible from the Northern hemisphere. On the entire Northern hemisphere you can ALWAYS see the north star since it never "sets" or gets obscured by the Earth*. So that's partially true in that anywhere in the NORTHERN hemisphere and any time of the year (or any time of the night) the north star will be visible. In the southern hemisphere, the north star is NEVER visible. Ever.

*Of course, if you're near the equator and there's a big mountain just to the north of you, the mountain will obscure the north star, but that's besides the point.

You didn't answer. Is the Earth accelerating and in which direction?

Just because you didn't direct that at anybody, I'll spoil the fun and answer...

The Earth is accellerating primarily towards the sun.

Of course, it's also accellerating towards the center of the Milky Way, and there are small forces by the moon and planets that pull it's accelleration this way and that. Ignoring the Milky Way, however, everything's negligable but the Sun... Which is why the Earth is accellerating toward the sun.

Aw nuts. Now I need some other way to figure out if Thai was really listening in Mechanics class ...

Robert the Pilegrim said:

<snort>
And how much time have you spent working out metric tensors, and doing permutations in index notation?

Your statements betray a rather serious misunderstanding of GR.
For a truly in depth understanding the classic is of course M,T & W
(which has added more authors in more recent editions).
For a reasonable intro some suggestions are:
A Short Course in General Relativity by Nightingale
or the relavent bits of:
The Classical Theory of Fields, Fourth Edition : Volume 2 (Course of Theoretical Physics Series) by E M Lifshitz, L D Landau
If you are allergic to calculus apparently
Gravity from the Ground Up : An Introductory Guide to Gravity and General Relativity by Bernard Schutz is pretty solid.

Myself, I used Ohanian (1st Ed.) which seemed pretty decent to me.

Click to expand...

Robert, two things...

1. Why "Pilegrim"? Is there a pun involved? Why not "Pilgrim"?
2. There is an unwritten Law of the Universe that when you make references to books, thou shalt embed the link to Amazon along with it!

Cheers,

Kepler

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

No, but all Sunday I was gone at church and I've been busy most of today.
Your question is intended to paint a literal reading of certain passages in an unfavorable light. And though I realize that many things in scripture are symbolic, the geocentricity expressed throughout scripture is extremely clear. Lets look at the passage you are referring to; for the purpose of this discussion I will defend a literal translation instead of appearing inconsistent by claiming figurative speech!

"It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it."

Mark 4:31-32
​

1. If you look at the context you will see that the next verse limits it's discussion to speaking of "herbs" and the both verses limits it to seeds that are "sown".
2. Who are we to say that God couldn't have since that time altered the size of plants and their seeds? Your argument is almost identical to the objection used by atheists and skeptics who claim scripture lies when it talks of Goliath; it is assuming that people couldn't have changed size.* Whereas fossil evidence shows skeletons of enormous people (i.e., over 12 feet tall**). Couldn&#8217;t God have changed the size of seeds as well???
3. Finally, who will venture to place the "logic" of fallible man over of the authority of scripture?

Sincerely, Zach Doty

*We are speaking of micro evolution NOT macro evolution. Micro evolution is merely variations within a certain type/species/kind of animal; the animal still remains that same animal. This is biblical and scientific and should not be called evolution as there are only losses of information, information is never gained.

**Watch this video by Kent Hovind. (Kent Hovind is a hated man; as all Christians should be. So I&#8217;m asking that you don't try to use the &#8220;discredit the messenger&#8221; approach as a means of ignoring the message)

Click to expand...

Nice attempt at dodging the question, but your skills are not what they need to be.

1) Sorry, pal, but "herb" does not limit or modify "seed"; "grown"modifies "herb", just as "smallest" modifies "seed". The whole point of the parable is the CONTRAST of sizes. The "smallest of all seeds" grows into the "largest of all herbs".
2) David and Goliath are not the issue; stop trying to evade the question.
3) I'm not placing any logic over scripture. Another evasion tactic.

Jesus is using a real-life example as the illustration for the parable(something he does in about 2/3 of his parables). There's NOTHING symbolic about the illustration.

Now, back to the question:
WAS. JESUS. WRONG. WHEN. HE. CALLED. THE. MUSTARD. SEED. THE. SMALLEST. OF. ALL. SEEDS...???

And lastly, please do not bring Kent Hovind up again. My older brother graduated from the High School attached to the Church that Hovind attended in Colorado Springs. I know of Kent Hovind all too well. I cannot think of a more UNGODLY man for you to hitch your wagon to...

K

KEPLER said:

Robert, two things...

1. Why "Pilegrim"? Is there a pun involved? Why not "Pilgrim"?
2. There is an unwritten Law of the Universe that when you makes references to books, thou shalt embed the link to Amazon along with it!

Cheers,

Kepler

Click to expand...

1) Pilegrim is a medieval spelling, long story...

2) Oops. I was doing a cut and paste of the title from Amazon and the link came along for the ride.

<EDIT>
Haste and fatigue caused me to misread the second point, I thought you were asking me why I put in a link to Amazon.
Which I hadn't. oh well.
I suspect amazon junkies already know this but after a simple search under "Books", at the bottom of the page is a button labeled "Books Search" which brings you to:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/stores/static/-/books/search/
Which is the advanced amazon books search.

Thanks Demiter for your reply

Along the same line, how about these two premises:

Premise #1

Say the earth is going around the sun and the stars are 'stationary' in relation to a moving earth. Would it not be true that if you look out of a telescope at the stars in January that you would see a totally different arrangement of stars than you would see in June seeing the earth would be on the opposite side of the sun?

Premise #2)

Say the earth is rotating every 24 hours upon its axis and the stars are still 'stationary' in relation to the moving earth.

Would you not again be able to see a totally different arrangement of stars at 6:00 P.M. than you would at 6:00 A.M.?

Blessings upon you all in Jesus name

epoheno said:

Thanks Demiter for your reply

Along the same line, how about these two premises:

Premise #1

Say the earth is going around the sun and the stars are 'stationary' in relation to a moving earth. Would it not be true that if you look out of a telescope at the stars in January that you would see a totally different arrangement of stars than you would see in June seeing the earth would be on the opposite side of the sun?

Premise #2)

Say the earth is rotating every 24 hours upon its axis and the stars are still 'stationary' in relation to the moving earth.

Would you not again be able to see a totally different arrangement of stars at 6:00 P.M. than you would at 6:00 A.M.?

Blessings upon you all in Jesus name

Click to expand...

Um... you're mixing up two different "rotations." The earth is rotating. That is why the sky looks different from 7:00 to 12:00. The Earth is also orbiting the Sun. That's why the sky looks different from June to January even if it's exactly the same time of the day. You actually see a totally different set of stars from June to January though remember this isn't because the stars go away -- it's only because those stars would only be visible during the day when the sun's light drowns out all the starlight. On the below diagram, I'm sure you can imagine how stars on the right are drown out by the sun when the Earth is on the left. Alternatively, stars on the left are drowned out when the Earth is on the right. At night you will ALWAYS be able to see the stars along the Earth's axis or to the top left (as the axis is slightly tilted in relation to the Earth's orbit). This is why the North star is always visible.

Indeed, if you draw a line through the center of the Earth's rotation, it'll point directly (or very close) to the North star. No matter where the Earth is in its orbit OR in its rotation, the axis of rotation still points toward the north star. Therefore, the north star is visible from Earth all the time.


Here's a picture that might make it clearer. The Earth's axis of rotation points toward the north star. No matter what time of the day/year, the axis still points toward the north star. Remember that the north star is so far away that it can be said to be stationary. You can use simple trigonometry to calculate its apparent movement from one side of the Earth's orbit to the other. It comes out to about .000000037 degrees -- certainly not enough to move the north star noticably away from the Earth's axis! Of course it's parallax can be detected with sensitive telescopes, but it's obviously not going to move Polaris from the view of the northern hemisphere!

Here's the kicker. If you look at the stars at June, and again at January, you can actually see some of the nearer stars move against the background of much further stars. It's exactly the same effect that makes roadsigns zip past you while trees in the distance appear to move very slowly. Just this year, better telescopes have pushed our ability to measure this to over 1000 light years (iirc), so there are a LOT of stars we can see exibiting this effect.

This effect (called parallax) is very well known -- it's been used to determing the distance to stars for decades. It is VERY strong evidence for the Earth's movement in relation to the rest of the universe.

epoheno said:

When the earth is supposedly spinning around the sun would it not make sense that as different positions of the year you would always see a new panorama of stars as you look out of a telescope at night?

But I hear some people say you can always see the north star no matter where you are. Is this true? Is the north star always apparent no matter where you are on the globe and no matter what time of year it is?

Blessings to you in Jesus name

Click to expand...

Actually this is what put the nail in the coffin of Geocentricity over 150 years ago. YOU DO SEE AT "different positions of the year you would always see a new panorama of stars as you look out of a telescope at night"

When Telescopes were getting more sophisticated in the 1800's carefull measurements of the postions of the stars do shift from one season to the next and then back again in the as you approach the anniversary. Just like if you hold your finger out and alternately open and close alternate eyes, your finger seems to jump in relationship to the background (think of your nose as the sun, your left eye as the first day of winter position of the earth and your right eye as the first day of summer position of the earth.) Of course as you move your finger farther from your eye the amount of the jump gets smaller and smaller. In the case of stars, this "jump" is hardly noticible with the human eye because of the distances involved, but very carefully calibrated telescopes can measure it.

So in actuality you do see a different panoramic of stars every night, just very subtely so.

NarrowPathPilgrim said:

A couple of them could be twisted to say that by reading the word "circle" to mean a non-spherical circle, but for the most part they would never lead a reader to that conclusion.

Click to expand...

All circles are non-spherical. that is the definition of a circle, and sphere. Period. A circle is in a plane, aka, flat. No doubt whatsoever, no grey area, end of story.

(1) You are at a paradox. either the bible is mistaken, aka it is not the word of god, or you must insist that the world is flat.

Otherwise you are simply ignoring the the truth and, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not know the definition of the word "circle", anything you say to contradict (1) above in the future would make you a liar. That is not considered a good position to be taking in the face of God.

\Cir"cle\ (s[~e]r"k'l), n. [OE. cercle, F. cercle, fr. L.
circulus (Whence also AS. circul), dim. of circus circle,
akin to Gr. kri`kos, ki`rkos, circle, ring. Cf. {Circus},
{Circum-}.]
1. A plane figure, bounded by a single curve line called its
circumference, every part of which is equally distant from
a point within it, called the center.



\Sphere\, n. [OE. spere, OF. espere, F. sph[`e]re, L.
sphaera,. Gr. ??? a sphere, a ball.]
1. (Geom.) A body or space contained under a single surface,

which in every part is equally distant from a point within
called its center.

Deamiter said:

Um... you're mixing up two different "rotations." The earth is rotating. That is why the sky looks different from 7:00 to 12:00. The Earth is also orbiting the Sun. That's why the sky looks different from June to January even if it's exactly the same time of the day. You actually see a totally different set of stars from June to January though remember this isn't because the stars go away -- it's only because those stars would only be visible during the day when the sun's light drowns out all the starlight. On the below diagram, I'm sure you can imagine how stars on the right are drown out by the sun when the Earth is on the left. Alternatively, stars on the left are drowned out when the Earth is on the right. At night you will ALWAYS be able to see the stars along the Earth's axis or to the top right (as the axis is slightly tilted in relation to the Earth's orbit). This is why the North star is always visible.

Indeed, if you draw a line through the center of the Earth's rotation, it'll point directly (or very close) to the North star. No matter where the Earth is in its orbit OR in its rotation, the axis of rotation still points toward the north star. Therefore, the north star is visible from Earth all the time.

Here's a picture that might make it clearer. The Earth's axis of rotation points toward the north star. No matter what time of the day/year, the axis still points toward the north star. Remember that the north star is so far away that it can be said to be stationary. You can use simple trigonometry to calculate its apparent movement from one side of the Earth's orbit to the other. It comes out to about .000000037 degrees -- certainly not enough to move the north star noticably away from the Earth's axis! Of course it's parallax can be detected with sensitive telescopes, but it's obviously not going to move Polaris from the view of the northern hemisphere!

Here's the kicker. If you look at the stars at June, and again at January, you can actually see some of the nearer stars move against the background of much further stars. It's exactly the same effect that makes roadsigns zip past you while trees in the distance appear to move very slowly. Just this year, better telescopes have pushed our ability to measure this to over 1000 light years (iirc), so there are a LOT of stars we can see exibiting this effect.

This effect (called parallax) is very well known -- it's been used to determing the distance to stars for decades. It is VERY strong evidence for the Earth's movement in relation to the rest of the universe.

Click to expand...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Deamiter again.

jleslie48 said:

All circles are non-spherical. that is the definition of a circle, and sphere. Period. A circle is in a plane, aka, flat. No doubt whatsoever, no grey area, end of story.

(1) You are at a paradox. either the bible is mistaken, aka it is not the word of god, or you must insist that the world is flat.

Click to expand...

Actually in this case I might have to agree with him. The word we cited in the Bible as "circle" is pretty close to sphere in Hebrew. They do have one word that might work better, but that word is ALSO used interchangably for ball or circle. I guess the ancient Hebrews really had little reason to distinguish between a circle and a sphere which makes sense since they weren't too technically accurate about many other things!

I'm certainly not a Hebrew scholar -- I've studied enough Greek to get the grammar and to be able to study certain words or phrases. However, what I've read about this particular term suggests that it's inconclusive in this argument.

In English, certainly there is no "spherical circle" and the phrase is actually meaningless. In ancient Hebrew, they don't care whether it's 2D or 3D as long as it's round.

Deamiter said:

Actually in this case I might have to agree with him. The word we cited in the Bible as "circle" is pretty close to sphere in Hebrew. They do have one word that might work better, but that word is ALSO used interchangably for ball or circle. I guess the ancient Hebrews really had little reason to distinguish between a circle and a sphere which makes sense since they weren't too technically accurate about many other things!

I'm certainly not a Hebrew scholar -- I've studied enough Greek to get the grammar and to be able to study certain words or phrases. However, what I've read about this particular term suggests that it's inconclusive in this argument.

In English, certainly there is no "spherical circle" and the phrase is actually meaningless. In ancient Hebrew, they don't care whether it's 2D or 3D as long as it's round.

Click to expand...

I have no Idea who you are agreeing with.

You also state "The word we cited in the Bible as "circle" is pretty close to sphere in Hebrew. They do have one word that might work better, but that word is ALSO used interchangably for ball or circle." It appears to me that you are also stating that the word circle in an english translation of the bible should be the word sphere (ball.) That would mean that the bible translation is in error. I would then argue that it is entirely likely that other parts of the bible have also been misenterpreted/mistranslated, and have been so for many 1000's of years.