Geocentrisim or Heliocentrism?

Onesimus

Hi, this is a purely Christian topic but I welcome other people to hop in also, just as long as we all stick to the topic being discussed.

This is my limited knowledge on the subject.

Geocentrism is the belief ( in Accordance with scripture ) that the earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it? right? ( Hope I've got that right.

Heliocentrism is the belief that the earth and everything else revolves around the sun.

What are your thoughts? Geo or Helio for you-o?:phehe

Let the discussion commence * blows trumpet *

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

Geocentrism is the belief ( in accordance with some lunatics' misinterpretation of Scripture ) that the earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it?

FYP

Onesimus

PDN wrote: »

FYP

But...science has never proven Helio centrism nor has it been able to disprove geocentrism, so isnt it possible for Christians to hold both views?

PDN

Onesimus wrote: »

But...science has never proven Helio centrism nor has it been able to disprove geocentrism, so isnt it possible for Christians to hold both views?

It's possible to hold any view. That's why we have UFO-nuts wearing tinfoil hats.

I would see the scientific evidence for heliocentrism to be overwhelming and easy enough to understand.

Onesimus

I would see the scientific evidence for heliocentrism to be overwhelming and easy enough to understand.

Easy to understand yes I find any theory 'easy to understand' but is it true? has it been proven? It's also easy to fall into the trap of science seeing as its all we are being fed is heliocentrism since the dawn of our birth ( well most peoples births, you'd have to pretty old though ).

Scientists seem to have this pshychological hold on people 'Dont question us because we know everything about the visible and if you do question us particularly with the word of God we will laugh at you, and laugh at you hard.'

neddy_seagoon

Neither the Earth nor the sun is the centre of the universe.

Fanny Cradock

This "either or" science Vs religion idea is very damaging. My advice to you is to look at the roots of modern science (you will find Christianity there), understand what science does (it doesn't, for example, deal in proofs) and consider that science and Christianity are (largely) in harmony.

You might enrich your understanding of both science and Christianity by heading to the Faraday Institute and listening to some of the talks. (That is just one example of many.)

Onesimus

neddy_seagoon wrote: »

Neither the Earth nor the sun is the centre of the universe.

Ah now here we go *put his gloves on* :mad::D:pac:

Onesimus

(it doesn't, for example, deal in proofs)

Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

Easy to understand yes I find any theory 'easy to understand' but is it true? has it been proven?

yes it has to a satisfactory degree.

By the way I should introduce some terminology and some modern context. Geokenetic is a moving earth and heliostatic is a stationary Sun. Peripathetic Philosophy of Galileos time assumed the Earth didnbt move and the sun was at the centre because it fitted in with Greek non-relativistic Philosophy and rationality which Aquinas had adopted into the church. Thus the "prime Mover" became the "first cause"

Modern physics would assert that ther is no absolute reference frame or privileged observer and thus we can assert it is just like Earth being at the centre of the Universe. However it demonstrably goes round the sun and rotates on its axis.

It's also easy to fall into the trap of science seeing as its all we are being fed is heliocentrism since the dawn of our birth ( well most peoples births, you'd have to pretty old though ).

Scientists seem to have this pshychological hold on people 'Dont question us because we know everything about the visible and if you do question us particularly with the word of God we will laugh at you, and laugh at you hard.'

You have it the wrong way around!It is unreasonable to "argue from authority" as the Middle Age Philosophers did with Galileos empirically and philosophically superior position.
By the way Galileo also had an ego and let it get in the way.

Yes science has a "received view" or "accepted paradigm" but it is based on reason and measurement and non scientific academics are even worse in this at defending what they believe in. But science also says "if you have a better theory or an improvement then feel free to show it to us" . If you really dont want to be told it then think about it. What evidence would show the Earth does not Go around the Sun or move? What evidence would show it does go round the sun? the evidence is there. If you remain willfully ignorant dont blame others.

Onesimus

ISAW wrote: »

yes it has to a satisfactory degree.

By the way I should introduce some terminology and some modern context. Geokenetic is a moving earth and heliostatic is a stationary Sun. Peripathetic Philosophy of Galileos time assumed the Earth didnbt move and the sun was at the centre because it fitted in with Greek non-relativistic Philosophy and rationality which Aquinas had adopted into the church. Thus the "prime Mover" became the "first cause"

Modern physics would assert that ther is no absolute reference frame or privileged observer and thus we can assert it is just like Earth being at the centre of the Universe. However it demonstrably goes round the sun and rotates on its axis.



You have it the wrong way around!It is unreasonable to "argue from authority" as the Middle Age Philosophers did with Galileos empirically and philosophically superior position.
By the way Galileo also had an ego and let it get in the way.

Yes science has a "received view" or "accepted paradigm" but it is based on reason and measurement and non scientific academics are even worse in this at defending what they believe in. But science also says "if you have a better theory or an improvement then feel free to show it to us" . If you really dont want to be told it then think about it. What evidence would show the Earth does not Go around the Sun or move? What evidence would show it does go round the sun? the evidence is there. If you remain willfully ignorant dont blame others.

So if harry potter movie number 1 isnt to your taste, change directors and make a harry potter two? either way your still in fantasy land with no evidence.

neddy_seagoon

Onesimus wrote: »

Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science

That wouldn't be my reading of Fanny's post. Science deals in theories and hypotheses, and searches for evidence supporting one hypothesis over another. I don't what he/she said is controversial. Mathematics deals with proofs, not science.

Anyway, what precludes a scientist from writing novels or being a member of the Harry Potter fan club?

daithiocondun

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The sun is the centre of our galaxy around which all planets revolve. Moons (known as satellites) revolve around planets. There are many suns in other galaxies which function in the same way and these collectively constitute the Universe - the size of which is unknown and may possibly be infinite.

In relation to the bible, there are no exact references to say that the Earth was the centre of the universe. That's misinterpretation as PDN already stated.

There were ideas in the Church that the Earth was flat and was the centre of the Universe - although it's not clear whether this is as certain as previously thought. In fact, its thought that Copernicus knew the Earth was round long before Galileo and his contemporaries. But that's an aside.

To summarise, it's simply a matter of scientific fact that Geocentrism is not true. The Earth is not the centre of anything. And that does nothing to impede nor negate any Church teaching.

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

Did you read that? all you wannabe scientists? what fanny is saying is you might as well become another writer of fantasy novels and become a member of the harry potter fan club as well as study science

I dont kn ow if he said that but what is wrolng with being a Scientist and writing fantasy. ever heard of isaac asimov?

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

So if harry potter movie number 1 isnt to your taste, change directors and make a harry potter two? either way your still in fantasy land with no evidence.

I fail to see any confusion. what is the point you are making? taste is nothing to do with empirical data.

Onesimus

daithiocondun wrote: »

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The sun is the centre of our galaxy around which all planets revolve. Moons (known as satellites) revolve around planets. There are many suns in other galaxies which function in the same way and these collectively constitute the Universe - the size of which is unknown and may possibly be infinite.

In relation to the bible, there are no exact references to say that the Earth was the centre of the universe. That's misinterpretation as PDN already stated.

There were ideas in the Church that the Earth was flat and was the centre of the Universe - although it's not clear whether this is as certain as previously thought. In fact, its thought that Copernicus knew the Earth was round long before Galileo and his contemporaries. But that's an aside.

To summarise, it's simply a matter of scientific fact that Geocentrism is not true. The Earth is not the centre of anything. And that does nothing to impede nor negate any Church teaching.

1 Chron. 16:30

Scripture teaches that the earth does not move, where helio teaches that it does. I often wonder how true to the Bible Christians really are, particularly those who hold the scripture alone theory.

Onesimus

ISAW wrote: »

I fail to see any confusion. what is the point you are making? taste is nothing to do with empirical data.

My relation to harry potter is my relation to your idea that if one theory doesnt suit make a better one, either way your still stuck in a theory with no evidence. Could you elaborate on empirical data please?

I dont kn ow if he said that but what is wrolng with being a Scientist and writing fantasy. ever heard of isaac asimov?

I never said there was anything wrong with writing fantasy novels and being a scientist. I was making jest at what fanny said when she said that science doesnt require proof for its theories when it does or at least should have, for if it doesnt require proof it might as well hop on steven spielbergs bandwagon and join the E.T crew.

ISAW

daithiocondun wrote: »

I'm not sure what the issue is here. The sun is the centre of our galaxy around which all planets revolve.

im sure you meant "solar system" The Sol system is about two thirds out from the centre of our Milky Way Galaxy.

Moons (known as satellites) revolve around planets. There are many suns in other galaxies which function in the same way and these collectively constitute the Universe - the size of which is unknown and may possibly be infinite.

Modern cosmology would differ with you. the universe is FINITE but unbounded. We have a fair estimate of the size but we cant see it all.

In relation to the bible, there are no exact references to say that the Earth was the centre of the universe. That's misinterpretation as PDN already stated.

There were ideas in the Church that the Earth was flat

sorry to correct yo uagain. but there werent! The flat Earth is a nineteenth century thing. in fact the Bible suggests roundness IIR.

and was the centre of the Universe - although it's not clear whether this is as certain as previously thought. In fact, its thought that Copernicus knew the Earth was round long before Galileo and his contemporaries. But that's an aside.

He didnt! He believed it! How would he have known? How would you meaqsure it today using what Copernicus had available to him? You couldnt do it!

To summarise, it's simply a matter of scientific fact that Geocentrism is not true. The Earth is not the centre of anything. And that does nothing to impede nor negate any Church teaching.

Actually as I have suggested it is as scientific to assume that the Earth (or anywhere else) is at the centre of the universe ( when you are in that place)

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

1 Chron. 16:30

Scripture teaches that the earth does not move,

no it does not! that is your interpretaqtion!

But the argument you advance was about SCIENCE and you cant argue a science argument based on a personal belief in the literal absolute word of the Bible!

where helio teaches that it does. I often wonder how true to the Bible Christians really are, particularly those who hold the scripture alone theory.

Indeed but again that is an argument about scripture and not about science! If you were to believe literally every word you might even claim it literaqlly meant the Earth could not be more than a few thouisand years old and not thousands of millions of years old! But that is dealt with in the creationism discussion elsewhere.

Onesimus

ISAW wrote: »

no it does not! that is your interpretaqtion!

But the argument you advance was about SCIENCE and you cant argue a science argument based on a personal belief in the literal absolute word of the Bible!



Indeed but again that is an argument about scripture and not about science! If you were to believe literally every word you might even claim it literaqlly meant the Earth could not be more than a few thouisand years old and not thousands of millions of years old! But that is dealt with in the creationism discussion elsewhere.

Are you Christian? because if you read my scriptural quote it is what it is, there is nothing to interpret in that verse it is pretty clear in its statement.

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

My relation to harry potter is my relation to your idea that if one theory doesnt suit make a better one,

science usually improves rather than discards a theory. very rarely do paradigm shifts occur.

either way your still stuck in a theory with no evidence.

which theory are you suggesting has no evidence?
the whole of modern cosmology or just the Geokenetic/heliocentric bit?

Could you elaborate on empirical data please?

Look up "burden of proof" . If you are msaking a claim then state what it is you are claiming. I can then supply empirical data (not Bible quotes) to refute your claim.

I never said there was anything wrong with writing fantasy novels and being a scientist. I was making jest at what fanny said when she said that science doesnt require proof for its theories when it does or at least should have, for if it doesnt require proof it might as well hop on steven spielbergs bandwagon and join the E.T crew.

Where was it stated "science does not require proof"? In fact science in the latter 20th century moved from the verification motif to the falsification one. that is why above i asked what your theory is and then to make it truely scientific you can supply a test which coulod falsify it. i have no problem in showing evidence to falsify it.

Turtwig

ISAW wrote: »

He didnt! He believed it! How would he have known? How would you meaqsure it today using what Copernicus had available to him? You couldnt do it.

You actually can, but it would be a real inefficient waste of time. The first way would to be start measuring the angle at which ships appear to sink down the horizon. Then you'd have to visit various places several kilometres apart and at midday note the angle of shadows for various times in the years. The third way is star referencing, which it is believed how the babylonians and greeks figured it out. Similar to the shadows angle being different, depending on your location in earth the location of particular star in the sky would be different. There are several other ways too, I just can't think of them offhand.


Today all you have to do is use Newton's equations to get a spherical earth with a bulging equator and flattened poles. That would be a much easier starting point. That said, if you really wanted to do it, you would have to to translate bablyonian number system to out current one, use the star data collected by them and the greeks and get out there and start measuring shadows.

ISAW

Onesimus wrote: »

Are you Christian? because if you read my scriptural quote it is what it is, there is nothing to interpret in that verse it is pretty clear in its statement.

again you propose a scientific argument but base you r argument on literal fundamental biblical quotes

Your non science aside, literal interpretations can get you ibnto trouble her is just one example - slavery.
references to slavery in the Christian Scriptures:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm

People in debt (and their children) were still being sold into slavery in the first century CE:
bullet Matthew 18:25: "But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made."

Priests still owned slaves:
bullet Mark 14:66: "And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:"

Jesus is recorded as mentioning slaves in one of his parables. It is important to realize that the term "servant" or "maid" in the King James Version of the Bible refers to slaves, not employees like a butler, cook, or maid. Here, a slave which did not follow his owner's will would be beaten with many lashes of a whip. A slave who was unaware of his owner's will, but who did not behave properly, would also be beaten, but with fewer stripes.

This would have been a marvelous opportunity for Jesus to condemn the institution of slavery and its abuse of slaves. But he is not recorded of having bothered to taken it:
bullet Luke 12:45-48: "The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more."

One of the favorite passages of slave-owning Christians was St. Paul's infamous instruction that slaves to obey their owners in the same way that they obey Christ:
bullet Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him."

Other passages instructing slaves and slave owners in proper behavior are:
bullet Colossians 4:1: "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."

bullet 1 Timothy 6:1-3 "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;"

In his defense, St. Paul incorrectly expected that Jesus would return in the very near future. This might have demotivated him from speaking out against slavery or other social evils in the Roman Empire. Also he regarded slaves as persons of worth whom at least God considers of importance. St. Paul mentioned that both slaves and free persons are sons of God, and thus all part of the body of Christ and spiritually equal.
bullet 1 Corinthians 12:13: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit."

bullet Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

bullet Colossians 3:11: "Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all."

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

You actually can, but it would be a real inefficient waste of time. The first way would to be start measuring the angle at which ships appear to sink down the horizon.

that might prove a round earth but not that it moved! Or orbited the sun!

Then you'd have to visit various places several kilometres apart and at midday note the angle of shadows for various times in the years.

again this only demonstrates the earth ios roiund and not that it moves.

The third way is star referencing, which it is believed how the babylonians and greeks figured it out. Similar to the shadows angle being different, depending on your location in earth the location of particular star in the sky would be different.

ditto - dont show the earth moves!
The Greeks by the way as far back as ariustarchus of samos i think had suggested shadows and indeed even measured the circumpherence at 25,000 miles. But they believed it to be unmoving!

There are several other ways too, I just can't think of them offhand.

Sorry thats not good enough. WHAT other ways based on copernicus technology?

Today all you have to do is use Newton's equations to get a spherical earth with a bulging equator and flattened poles. That would be a much easier starting point.

That was not measured until a French expedition in the 1700's.
Newtons equations derived the oblatness but it was not measured till much later and with more advanced technology.

That said, if you really wanted to do it, you would have to to translate bablyonian number system to out current one, use the star data collected by them and the greeks and get out there and start measuring shadows.

Which don,t prove the cosmos is unmoving!

Turtwig

I can understand how people might not accept evolution as it something that occurs over huge timescales. I can also understand how people might not trust statistics because it disagrees with their own personal experience, but this is something I cannot even grasp. This is science that we can demonstrate within the limits of science as true with actual experiments that even lay people can easily watch and understand. Our understanding of the very simple concept of a day on earth is based on this theory. Our day to day proof of other planets orbiting stars is proof of this theory. But, to my mind, nothing proves the theory better than the extremely efficient orbital trajectories calculated by Space Agencies. For example when NASA launched the Voyager probes to the edge of our solar system they were able to predict when and where the probes would meet each planet along its journey. Using this knowledge they were also able to make the journey more efficient by availing of gravitational boosts from each planet. None of this would have been possible if the Everything orbited the Earth.



And for those interested in seeing (or reliving) this remarkable journey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na1mLpjxmYY

Turtwig

ISAW wrote: »

that might prove a round earth but not that it moved! Or orbited the sun!

Oh my brain fart, I was under the impression that the poster you were responding to in the quote was just referring a round earth as compared to a flat earth and not to heliocentrism.

daithiocondun wrote:

In fact, its thought that Copernicus knew the Earth was round long before Galileo and his contemporaries.

antiskeptic

Onesimus wrote: »

1 Chron. 16:30

Scripture teaches that the earth does not move, where helio teaches that it does. I often wonder how true to the Bible Christians really are, particularly those who hold the scripture alone theory.

You seem to be suggesting that sola scriptura demands you unplug your brain. By this logic of yours, sola scripturists would have to suppose Jesus covered with a fleece as white as snow - given that scripture says he's a lamb. The fact they don't (although there might well be some sect somewhere...) might cause you to rethink your logic.

S.S. isn't a theory btw. It's the practical point of maximum regression - in other words, it's the furthest back you can go in minimising the potential for man-made error. Go any further back and you have to throw the Bible itself out the window.

ISAW

Malty_T wrote: »

I can understand how people might not accept evolution as it something that occurs over huge timescales.

I think we should bew clear here about "huge".Creationists think in terms of thousands or tens of thousands maybe. Classical evolution is gradualist in terms of hundreds of millions of years. I myself am a catastrophist and lean on the idea that it can happen over "short" periods of a million years or less for a species and then not happen at all for a long time e.g. hundreds of millions of years.

I can also understand how people might not trust statistics because it disagrees with their own personal experience,

Science and "common sense" are two different things. Science does indeed have a values and commpn sense component phronesis. but science also has episteme and techne the rational and know how elements. here is a reference:
http://books.google.com/books?id=yVBXPf50EV0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22making+social+science+matter%22&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=CNCTRgLt1z1rRBTbFsPrUf_w_M0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Flyvbjerg, Bent, Making Social Science Matter: Why Social Inquiry Fails and How It Can Succeed Again (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001)

but this is something I cannot even grasp. This is science that we can demonstrate within the limits of science as true with actual experiments that even lay people can easily watch and understand.

Indeed but there are those who wont see the experiment and wont believe

Our understanding of the very simple concept of a day on earth is based on this theory.

as you can see aboive in some case it is not and was not.

Our day to day proof of other planets orbiting stars is proof of this theory.

No it isnt! Day to day common sense isnt rigourous technical scientific proof as I have alluded to above.

But, to my mind, nothing proves the theory better than the extremely efficient orbital trajectories calculated by Space Agencies. For example when NASA launched the Voyager probes to the edge of our solar system they were able to predict when and where the probes would meet each planet along its journey.

Which in fact they got "wrong" and almost destroyed VII on encounter with Jupiter and had to change V1s trajectory Probes have been destroyed by extermely inefficient calculations! But my question was about proving to a normal person without advanced mathematics using technology available only to Copernicus.

Travellers tales and argument from authority dont constitute proof. Im only trying to get people to think scientifically for themselves.

Using this knowledge they were also able to make the journey more efficient by availing of gravitational boosts from each planet. None of this would have been possible if the Everything orbited the Earth.

And for those interested in seeing (or reliving) this remarkable journey.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Na1mLpjxmYY

Thanks for that.

Turtwig

Yeah I know common sense doesn't prove science. I've made tonnes of posts saying that (I've also made posts showing the complexities of a year, or a day and how they aren't as straightforward as they seem.:)), but my point in the last post was that heliocentrism can largely be understood by lay people on common sense terms and that's why I find it hard to see how people can't accept it. It's not how they should understand it, but let's be honest that's how most people understand science really. My point regarding evolution and statistical based sciences is that to the lay person they simply aren't intuitive.

Fanny Cradock

I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would still think that geocentricism is anything but a debunked and obscure theory form antiquity. I think it is about as likely as a flat earth.

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I find it very difficult to understand why anyone would still think that geocentricism is anything but a debunked and obscure theory form antiquity. I think it is about as likely as a flat earth.

That would have been my assessment too, but it seems what current geocentrists mean by the term is not what we expect. I haven't had time to look deeper, but thought this deserved investigation:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
___________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would have been my assessment too, but it seems what current geocentrists mean by the term is not what we expect. I haven't had time to look deeper, but thought this deserved investigation:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

I've had a look at the website. It doesn't deserve investigation.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

wolfsbane wrote: »

That would have been my assessment too, but it seems what current geocentrists mean by the term is not what we expect. I haven't had time to look deeper, but thought this deserved investigation:
http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/

I've had a look at the website. It doesn't deserve investigation.

Great. Since it must be obviously wrong, maybe you will explain their argument to me, and why it is wrong?

I have almost no knowledge of Relativity, so it would be helpful if you demonstrate how it does not apply as they allege.

Thanks.
_________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Great. Since it must be obviously wrong, maybe you will explain their argument to me, and why it is wrong?

I have almost no knowledge of Relativity, so it would be helpful if you demonstrate how it does not apply as they allege.

Thanks.

They are not considering relativity at all. In fact, relativity would have to be wrong for geocentricism to be right. Relativity says the laws of physics do not change under smooth one-to-one space-time transformations. I.e. The laws of physics are the same for you and I regardless of where (or when) we are. This abolishes any notion of a preferred reference frame for the universe, such as geocentricism.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

They are not considering relativity at all. In fact, relativity would have to be wrong for geocentricism to be right. Relativity says the laws of physics do not change under smooth one-to-one space-time transformations. I.e. The laws of physics are the same for you and I regardless of where (or when) we are. This abolishes any notion of a preferred reference frame for the universe, such as geocentricism.

Actually this isnt relitivity it is one of the consequences of assumptions of cosmology.
Assumptions note!

There are only two homogenity and isotropism inferredd from the "cosmological principle"

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

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Morbert wrote:

They are not considering relativity at all. In fact, relativity would have to be wrong for geocentricism to be right. Relativity says the laws of physics do not change under smooth one-to-one space-time transformations. I.e. The laws of physics are the same for you and I regardless of where (or when) we are. This abolishes any notion of a preferred reference frame for the universe, such as geocentricism.

Actually this isnt relitivity

Yes it is.

"All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics." – C. Møller, The Theory of Relativity

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Great. Since it must be obviously wrong, maybe you will explain their argument to me, and why it is wrong?

I have almost no knowledge of Relativity, so it would be helpful if you demonstrate how it does not apply as they allege.

Thanks.

Seriously I would love to know exactly what it is about the Theory of Relativity that makes you fully accept what the the peer reviewed scientific method has to say about it, and yet you find it so the same method so disagreeable in every branch of science that does not conform precisely to your worldview?

Surely you should equally feel that this site "deserves" investigation? - http://www.relativitychallenge.com

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Yes it is.

"All systems of reference are equivalent with respect to the formulation of the fundamental laws of physics." – C. Møller, The Theory of Relativity

Equivalence of reference frames being the same is relativity but you added in the idea of the laws of physics always being the samew everywhere in the universe. That ISN'T relativity. in the "Theory of Relitivity" sense. that is an assumption. Even though it is the same assumption that can bring one to Einstines relativity it is a more global proposition. It is a fair assumption even though some theorists think the laws may be different elsewhere. cosmology assumes that matter is on the whole evenly spread and that the laws of physics always act in the same way and are the same laws. Only if physics applies uniformly does relativity apply.

To quote your reference above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity_principles
Certain principles of relativity have been widely assumed in most scientific disciplines. One of the most widespread is the belief that any law of nature should be the same at all times; and scientific investigations generally assume that laws of nature are the same regardless of the person measuring them.

So ill meet you half way on that one i.e. if you assume relitivity as a philosophy and not MODERN Einstinean relativity which although philosophically from the same base is not necessarily caused by it. The origin of relativity and causes of it can get us into a genetic fallacy.

"The laws of the universe applying in the same way" and "no privilegded observer" while they may yield the same outcome are NOT the same thing.

ISAW

marco_polo wrote: »

Seriously I would love to know exactly what it is about the Theory of Relativity

So we dont get intio the same semantic morass as I did with morbert what "theory of relativity" do you refer? Aristotle, Einstein? Justy state the theory and what you think it claims.

that makes you fully accept what the the peer reviewed scientific method has to say about it,

Ill admit there is a argument for "it looks so good it must be true" but you have it backwards here. The whole poinbt od "peer review" is that it looks at the theory and tries to show ways in which it might be wrong or tries to verify parts of it.

"peer review" is basically a "fair test"

So to answer your question what makes people accept the fairest way we know to date to test anything is the fact that it is the fairest way we know to test anything.

and yet you find it so the same method so disagreeable in every branch of science that does not conform precisely to your worldview?

Again you seem to have ti backwards If I have a worldview it is for me to propose tests by which science can confirm or deny my worldview. What test can you propose which has showed relativity to be wrong. You are aware Einstines general relkativity explained things which science could not explain before that e.g. Mercurys orbit and gravitational lensing?

Surely you should equally feel that this site "deserves" investigation? - http://www.relativitychallenge.com

Why dont you take something from that site and bring it here and make an argument to supopoort it then? If you claim it it is for you to shoulder the burden of evidence.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

Equivalence of reference frames being the same is relativity but you added in the idea of the laws of physics always being the same everywhere in the universe. That ISN'T relativity. in the "Theory of Relitivity" sense.

Yes it is. General covariance is a postulate of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

that is an assumption. Even though it is the same assumption that can bring one to Einstines relativity it is a more global proposition.

It is a fair assumption even though some theorists think the laws may be different elsewhere. cosmology assumes that matter is on the whole evenly spread and that the laws of physics always act in the same way and are the same laws. Only if physics applies uniformly does relativity apply.

To quote your reference above:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity#Basic_relativity_principles
Certain principles of relativity have been widely assumed in most scientific disciplines. One of the most widespread is the belief that any law of nature should be the same at all times; and scientific investigations generally assume that laws of nature are the same regardless of the person measuring them.

So ill meet you half way on that one i.e. if you assume relitivity as a philosophy and not MODERN Einstinean relativity which although philosophically from the same base is not necessarily caused by it. The origin of relativity and causes of it can get us into a genetic fallacy.

"The laws of the universe applying in the same way" and "no privilegded observer" while they may yield the same outcome are NOT the same thing.

Half-way? I said the theory of relativity "says the laws of physics do not change under smooth one-to-one space-time transformations. I.e. The laws of physics are the same for you and I regardless of where (or when) we are." Do you disagree with this?

marco_polo

ISAW wrote: »

So we dont get intio the same semantic morass as I did with morbert what "theory of relativity" do you refer? Aristotle, Einstein? Justy state the theory and what you think it claims.



Ill admit there is a argument for "it looks so good it must be true" but you have it backwards here. The whole poinbt od "peer review" is that it looks at the theory and tries to show ways in which it might be wrong or tries to verify parts of it.

"peer review" is basically a "fair test"

So to answer your question what makes people accept the fairest way we know to date to test anything is the fact that it is the fairest way we know to test anything.



Again you seem to have ti backwards If I have a worldview it is for me to propose tests by which science can confirm or deny my worldview. What test can you propose which has showed relativity to be wrong. You are aware Einstines general relkativity explained things which science could not explain before that e.g. Mercurys orbit and gravitational lensing?



Why dont you take something from that site and bring it here and make an argument to supopoort it then? If you claim it it is for you to shoulder the burden of evidence.

Perhaps I failed to make my point clearly enough so I'll try again, it was directed at Wolfsbane, and I was simply wondering if there was any reason why, (apart from the fact that he is appears to be the impression that can be used to supports Geocentrism), that he is prepared to place trust in the scientific method in relation to Einsteins theory of relativity (and by extension the peer review system by which we arrived at our current understanding) despite admitting to having a "almost no knowledge" of Relativity.

And yet, he fails to hold anything like the same level of trust in the scientific method and peer review where any theory contradicts his belief in a young earth / universe.

philologos

Onesimus wrote: »

1 Chron. 16:30

Scripture teaches that the earth does not move, where helio teaches that it does. I often wonder how true to the Bible Christians really are, particularly those who hold the scripture alone theory.

Em night, and day are clear evidence of rotation?

Edit: Also seasons. This is why we don't have consistent summer, and why things are getting an awful lot colder. If geocentricism is true we have a problem, there are numerous Scriptures which show that God gives us the seasons also.

By the by, earth can mean two things in Hebrew. If the word is eretz, and I suspect it is, it means earth in the context of land or people, not earth as in the context of the planet.

As I suspected:
Earth - אָרֶץ (eretz)
World - תֵּבֵל (tebel)
Strongs 8398 for world: tebel (385c); from 2986; world:—inhabited(1), inhabited world(1), world(34).

Matthew Henry in his commentary argues that it isn't that the world doesn't move, it's that it cannot be removed from its current order because it is governed by God's laws.

When David is saying "Tremble all the earth", do you think he is referring to the physical land or to the people living on the land?

Likewise in 1 Chronicles 16:31 -

Let the heavens rejoice, let the earth be glad; let them say among the nations, "The LORD reigns!

Do you think the earth means that the physical earth should exert gladness, or that the people on the earth are glad?

It is very possible that given the context of this passage, world could mean in the sense of the inhabited world, I.E - the population either. Matthew Henry's idea seems to make sense. When one says that something cannot be moved, one effectively means that one cannot be disturbed, or knocked off ones original path.

Sometimes, I wish I was a billingual Ancient Hebrew / Koine Greek speaker, or perhaps a trillingual Ancient Hebrew / Koine Greek / English speaker. It would be absolutely superb. Unfortunately I'm not the best at learning languages! :P

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not the best at learning languages! :P

Html, CSS?

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Seriously I would love to know exactly what it is about the Theory of Relativity that makes you fully accept what the the peer reviewed scientific method has to say about it, and yet you find it so the same method so disagreeable in every branch of science that does not conform precisely to your worldview?

Surely you should equally feel that this site "deserves" investigation? - http://www.relativitychallenge.com

Exactly where in my post did I say I fully accepted what the the peer reviewed scientific method has to say about it? I offered no comment on Relativity's merits - I just asked how it does not apply as they allege. I assumed you held to Relativity and found their case conflicted with it.

The ensuing debate here only highlights why a non-scientist like me would think the article deserved investigation. Not curt acceptance or dismissal - investigation. Have you so little respect for fellow-scientists that you dismiss their case before investigation?
________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.*

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

Yes it is. General covariance is a postulate of Einstein's theory of general relativity.

And a postulate is???

Half-way? I said the theory of relativity "says the laws of physics do not change under smooth one-to-one space-time transformations. I.e. The laws of physics are the same for you and I regardless of where (or when) we are." Do you disagree with this?

It isnt a question of me agreeing they are the same it is that the relativity is based on the philosophical assumption that they are the same laws everywhere.

Look assume somewher in the universe gravity behaves like an inverse cube instead of an inverse square. an observer in that part of the universe is privledged in the sense that he views things differently.

In other words there isnt a priviledged observber iof the laws of pohysics work the same everywhere. Relativity is tyherefore dependant on the prior cosmological assumption

If the laws dint work the same everywhere relativity doesnt work. relativity does not proive the laws work the same everywhere since it itself assumes that to be true. that is what a postulate is!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/postulate

2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.
n. (psch-lt, -lt)
1. Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument:

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly where in my post did I say I fully accepted what the the peer reviewed scientific method has to say about it? I offered no comment on Relativity's merits - I just asked how it does not apply as they allege. I assumed you held to Relativity and found their case conflicted with it.

The ensuing debate here only highlights why a non-scientist like me would think the article deserved investigation. Not curt acceptance or dismissal - investigation. Have you so little respect for fellow-scientists that you dismiss their case before investigation?
________________________________________________________________
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.*

It deserves about as much investigation as the theory that the Earth is a flat disc supported by four elephants in standing on the back of a giant turtle.

I have plenty respect for the thousands and thousands of physicists, cosmologists and astronomers who have been working very successfully under the premise for the past four hundred years and fifty years or more.

The alternative of cuurse being that they are all either all idiots or part of a giant conspiracy.

As for that respecting the scientists behind GalileowasWrong, well as they don't even seem to realise that as Geocentrists the target or their ire should be Copernicus, only the Heliocentrists really have the right to be annoyed at Galileo.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

And a postulate is???

It isnt a question of me agreeing they are the same it is that the relativity is based on the philosophical assumption that they are the same laws everywhere.

Look assume somewher in the universe gravity behaves like an inverse cube instead of an inverse square. an observer in that part of the universe is privledged in the sense that he views things differently.

In other words there isnt a priviledged observber iof the laws of pohysics work the same everywhere. Relativity is tyherefore dependant on the prior cosmological assumption

If the laws dint work the same everywhere relativity doesnt work. relativity does not proive the laws work the same everywhere since it itself assumes that to be true. that is what a postulate is!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/postulate

2. To assume or assert the truth, reality, or necessity of, especially as a basis of an argument.
3. To assume as a premise or axiom; take for granted. See Synonyms at presume.
n. (psch-lt, -lt)
1. Something assumed without proof as being self-evident or generally accepted, especially when used as a basis for an argument:

What does this have to do with anything I've said? General covariance is a postulate of relativity in the same way that "there is a hermitian operator for every observable" is a postulate of quantum mechanics, or that "F=ma" is a postulate of Newtonian mechanics. You said "Actually this isn't relativity", but what I said was relativity, as it was a postulate of relativity. I'm really confused as to what your issue with my post was.

ISAW

Morbert wrote: »

What does this have to do with anything I've said?
[/quote i have explained how "relativity" in a philosophical sense and in the particular modern physics context depends on absolutes. The assumption that "there are no absolutes" creates a paradox because it itself is an absolute

General covariance is a postulate of relativity in the same way that "there is a hermitian operator for every observable" is a postulate of quantum mechanics, or that "F=ma" is a postulate of Newtonian mechanics.

F=ma isnt a postulate!

F=ma is a mathematical expression of Newtons second Law.

If you are saying the second Law itself is an "assumption" then okay i'll agree with your statement that it isn't proven and is assumed to be true for the purpose of the theory. The idea that the laws of physics work the same everywhere in the universe is a fair assumption but it is still a philosophical assumption.

You said "Actually this isn't relativity", but what I said was relativity, as it was a postulate of relativity. I'm really confused as to what your issue with my post was.

I think I explained and Ill do so again. Relativity is grounded in an absolute. One can not prove an absolute by stating in the beginning P: "there are no absolutes".

The "relativity" of Modern physics in cosmology depends on ASSUMPTIONS. In oither words we make the assumptions and we arrive at the conclusiuon of relativity. You are saying we assume the relativity and arrive at modren cosmology. We don't! Einstein began with two postulate ( ASSUMPTIONS unproven and just assumed to be true) 1. That the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and 2. Wherever you do an experiment you get the same result.


2 comes from Machs Principle an I think thaqt is where our problem lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
In this sense, at least some of Mach principles are related to philosophical holism. Mach's suggestion can be taken as the injunction that gravitation theories should be relational theories. Einstein brought the principle into mainstream physics while working on general relativity. Indeed it was Einstein who first coined the phrase Mach's principle. There is much debate as to whether Mach really intended to suggest a new physical law since he never states it explicitly

You seem to me to by saying 2 means "one cant get a different result" = "all measurements are relative to the observer".

and even these two aren't enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
As Einstein himself later acknowledged, the derivation tacitly makes use of some additional assumptions, including spatial homogeneity, isotropy, and memorylessness.

In other words the cosmological ASSUMPTIONS I mentioned are admitted to by Einstein.

Morbert

ISAW wrote: »

I think I explained and Ill do so again. Relativity is grounded in an absolute. One can not prove an absolute by stating in the beginning P: "there are no absolutes".

The "relativity" of Modern physics in cosmology depends on ASSUMPTIONS. In oither words we make the assumptions and we arrive at the conclusiuon of relativity. You are saying we assume the relativity and arrive at modren cosmology. We don't! Einstein began with two postulate ( ASSUMPTIONS unproven and just assumed to be true) 1. That the speed of light in a vacuum is constant and 2. Wherever you do an experiment you get the same result.

2 comes from Machs Principle an I think thaqt is where our problem lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle
In this sense, at least some of Mach principles are related to philosophical holism. Mach's suggestion can be taken as the injunction that gravitation theories should be relational theories. Einstein brought the principle into mainstream physics while working on general relativity. Indeed it was Einstein who first coined the phrase Mach's principle. There is much debate as to whether Mach really intended to suggest a new physical law since he never states it explicitly

You seem to me to by saying 2 means "one cant get a different result" = "all measurements are relative to the observer".

and even these two aren't enough
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
As Einstein himself later acknowledged, the derivation tacitly makes use of some additional assumptions, including spatial homogeneity, isotropy, and memorylessness.

In other words the cosmological ASSUMPTIONS I mentioned are admitted to by Einstein.

I asked you what your issue with my post was. I.e. How is what you've said related to anything I've said.

Wolfsbane asked me how geocentrists use relativity. I said they don't as relativity would have to be wrong for geocentricism to be right, as relativity says the laws of physics are the same for all observers no matter where they are or how they are moving with respect to things. Do you agree or disagree that the theory of relativity says this?

If we had instead been talking about the speed of light, and I said relativity says the speed of light is the same for all observers, would you say "Actually this isn't relativity because that is a postulate."?

Soul Winner

Onesimus wrote: »

Hi, this is a purely Christian topic but I welcome other people to hop in also, just as long as we all stick to the topic being discussed.

This is my limited knowledge on the subject.

Geocentrism is the belief ( in Accordance with scripture ) that the earth is the centre of the universe and everything revolves around it? right? ( Hope I've got that right.

The Bible does not express support for geocentricism. Nor does it support that everything was created for mankind or that mankind is God's crowning creation. Each of which are strawman arguments made up by people who think that by arguing against such notions they are supporting the idea that the Copernican principle is where religion and science part company. Complete and utter balderdash.

The Copernican principle simply moves the earth from its then supposed (unsupported by scripture) position (i.e. the center of the universe) to one that put it on an equal par with Mars, Venus and all the other then known planets, i.e. they all revolved around the Sun. The prevailing view at this time (i.e. geocentricism) was not just the view held by the Church, but it was the view of all the scientists as well. The then new Copernican view was unsupported by any evidence until Galileo came along with his telescope. And the reason he was placed under house arrest by the Church was not because he held to this view but because he pissed off a lot of clergy and Bishops by putting them down in his writings, including (I think) the Pope.

Onesimus wrote: »

Heliocentrism is the belief that the earth and everything else revolves around the sun.

Heliocentrism is the view that all the planets including the earth orbit the Sun, which in turn orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy like all the other stars in that galaxy do.

Onesimus wrote: »

What are your thoughts? Geo or Helio for you-o?:phehe

Nobody knows where the center of the universe is, but if we were to nit pick at the Bible then we could argue that one of the oldest books in the Bible mentions a constellation called the Pleiades which is located in the neck of Taurus the bull and credits its creation to God - Job 9:9. Although not mentioned by name in the Bible, there is a star within this sub constellation named from the most ancient of times and in various different ancient cultures as, Alcyone, which means center. Maybe this is the center of the universe? And that the Bible actually supports Alcyocentricism as apposed to Geocentricism.

philologos

As PDN has argued a good number of times on this forum. It seems that geocentrism is the product of the RCC's heavy dependence on Aristotle.