That's like saying someone shouldn't argue about evolution because they have no understanding of carbon dating.
You can't prove geocentrism wrong.
Does the Sun Move According to the Bible?
- Thread starter Daniel1769
- Start date
That's like saying someone shouldn't argue about evolution because they have no understanding of carbon dating.
You can't prove geocentrism wrong.
You probably shouldn't attempt to argue evolution from a scientific point if view either.
Nor can you prove it exclusively true.
What are you trying to show with this? Nothing you have said is really wrong, it just doesn't mean anything.
I've made it clear that neither geocentrism or heliocentrism can be proven true or false.
However, one is true and one is false, they both can't be true. The earth either spins, tilts, and rotates around the sun, or it is standing still and everything is rotating around it.
There is no way to know.
From standing on planet earth, by observation, it appears the sun rises and sets.
From where I live (Pennsylvania) it appears the moon moves east to west.
Heliocentrism claims both are wrong. They claim the sun doesn't move, and from where I am the moon is really moving west to east.
Because if earth is still, and space is moving, it's the same effect on satellites.
That's correct.
Yet, everyone is taught that heliocentrism is correct, and geocentrism is wrong.
You're claiming the earth allegedly travels hundreds of millions of miles in 6 months, and then the stars appear in the exact same spot they were 6 months prior.
Modern telescopes allow astronomers to use the annual parallax to measure the distance to nearby stars, using triangulation. The astronomer carefully measures the position of the star on two dates, spaced six months apart. The nearer the star is to the Sun, the larger the apparent shift in its position will be between the two dates.
Over the six-month period, the Earth has moved through half its orbit around the Sun; in this time its position has changed by 2 Astronomical Units (abbreviated AU; 1 AU is the distance from the Earth to the Sun, or about 150 million kilometers). This sounds like a really long distance, but even the nearest star to the Sun (alpha Centauri) is about 40 trillion kilometers away. Therefore, the annual parallax is very small, typically smaller than one arcsecond, which is only 1/3600 of one degree. A convenient distance unit for nearby stars is the parsec, which is short for "parallax arcsecond". One parsec is the distance a star would have if its observed parallax angle was one arcsecond. It is equal to 3.26 light-years, or 31 trillion kilometers. -- https://docs.kde.org/trunk5/en/kdeedu/kstars/ai-parallax.html
The nearest star, α Centauri, has a parallax angle of 0.76″. Therefore its distance is d = 1/0.76″ = 1.3 pc (4 ly). The ground‐based limit of parallax measurement accuracy is approximately 0.02 arc second, limiting determination of accurate distances to stars within 50 pc (160 ly). -- http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study-gu...rties-of-stars/stellar-parallax-and-distances
The nearest star exhibits a parallax of 0.762 arcsec, and therefore is 1.31 parsecs away. Some well-known examples of distance measurement by parallax are 61 Cygni at 1/3 of an arcsec, distance 3 parsecs, and Barnard's Star at 1.8 parsecs = 5.9 light years. Barnard's Star also exhibits a large proper motion. -- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/para.html
These ridiculous distances are because there's virtually no change in the position of stars after the earth just allegedly traveled hundreds of millions of miles.
So the whole science of astronomy is a giant conspiracy?
gcthomas
New member
General Relativity solutions are independent of the coordinate system, so if your maths is up to it you can solve the tensor equations to determine the spacetime curvature using the Earth as a non-rotating reference frame. It will give the exact same behaviour as assuming a heliocentric or CBR reference frame. Geocentrism is fine under GR.
However, the geocentric solutions introduce terms for a whole bunch of fictitious forces, so it is much more complicated, and by Ockham's razor should be rejected. But only for its complexity when less complex solutions are available.
IOW, you can't disprove geocentrism, and you can't prove heliocentrism.
Whether global warming, evolution, or geocentrism, the vast majority of scientists behind what science claims today are atheists.
Atheists like to go on and on about "millions and millions of years ago", and "millions and millions of lightyears away", etc in an attempt to make it appear that man and planet earth are just some grain of sand in the big scheme of things.
Like I said earlier, think of the consequences geocentrism would have on evolution and atheism.
gcthomas
New member
On the contrary, I said that Geocentrism is a perfectly valid way of modelling the universe, even if it is inferior as a usable predictive model.
gcthomas
New member
Since geocentrism is a valid if useless as a frame of reference, then there would be no consequences at all. Not one, except for making calculations harder.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
See below:
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4384754#post4384754
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4385473#post4385473
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4385794#post4385794
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4387034#post4387034
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4387351#post4387351
AMR
If earth was the center of the universe, and everything revolved around earth, this would be a huge problem for atheists.
First off, the big bang theory would be proven wrong.
Secondly, it would be very hard for atheists to explain how the earth ended up as the center of the universe with everything revolving around it without a God.
gcthomas
New member
Physics has no preferred frame of reference. While you can adopt a geocentric view legitimately, you could also have adopted any other game of reference and physics will work fine, including big bang theory.
Having the earth at the centre of the universe is fine if it was an arbitrary frame of reference choice.
There is no special frame of reference - pick where you want - but that won't make it special, or harm atheism or physics.
Daniel1769
New member
The only thing we see when we look up is the sun, moon, stars and planets. The planets, from out vantage point, are lights. They were once called "wandering stars." The only way we see the terra firma-type features are from government sponsored pictures from NASA and other space agencies. We have no way to know that there are all these billions of planets they claim exist. We just see lights in the sky. We have no way to know that the stars are distant suns. The starts MUST be assumed to be trillions of miles away for the heliocentric model to work. If they weren't, we would see paralax movement. We don't.
There are two ways to assess the situation. We can rely on what we observe and experimentation that we can do using our senses or we can take the word of government agencies and the academic who are paid to support the model. The heliocentric model works fine theoretically. When you start with the answer then work out the math, you can make anything work. But based on what we actually observe, we are not on a ball that spins 1,000 mph at the equator and flies around the sun at 68,000 mph while the whole solar system flies through the galaxy at 68,000,000 mph while the galaxy flies through the universe at some faster speed unimaginable to human beings.
None of us have any reason to believe the heliocentric model except that the authorities in this field told us to believe it and their math checks out. For something as monumental as where we live, I would like some observational or experimental evidence that our eyes are wrong. Science is about what we can observe and test. Only special people with special tools working for special agencies can see anything that even remotely makes the heliocentric model real.
There are two ways to assess the situation. We can rely on what we observe and experimentation that we can do using our senses or we can take the word of government agencies and the academic who are paid to support the model. The heliocentric model works fine theoretically. When you start with the answer then work out the math, you can make anything work. But based on what we actually observe, we are not on a ball that spins 1,000 mph at the equator and flies around the sun at 68,000 mph while the whole solar system flies through the galaxy at 68,000,000 mph while the galaxy flies through the universe at some faster speed unimaginable to human beings.
None of us have any reason to believe the heliocentric model except that the authorities in this field told us to believe it and their math checks out. For something as monumental as where we live, I would like some observational or experimental evidence that our eyes are wrong. Science is about what we can observe and test. Only special people with special tools working for special agencies can see anything that even remotely makes the heliocentric model real.
For all the Christians who adhere to heliocentricity:
(Psalm 148:4 KJV) Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Please explain the waters above the heavens?
(Psalm 148:4 KJV) Praise him, ye heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens.
Please explain the waters above the heavens?