Posted on 08/25/2008 7:26:38 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system. On 14 January 2008, the Messenger spacecraft flew by the innermost planet of the solar system, Mercury. It was the first of several close encounters before Messenger finally settles into a steady orbit around Mercury in 2011.1 As it passed, it made quick measurements of Mercury’s magnetic field and transmitted them successfully back to Earth. On 4 July 2008, the Messenger team reported the magnetic results from the first flyby.2
As I mentioned on the CMI website earlier,3,4 I have been eagerly awaiting the results, because in 1984 I made scientific predictions—based on Scripture—about the magnetic fields of a number of planets, including that of Mercury.5 Spacecraft measurements6,7 have validated three of the predictions, highlighted in red in the web version of the 1984 article. The remaining prediction was:
(Excerpt) Read more at creationontheweb.com ...
Just for the record, I’m not a geocentric dude...
This issue is not like interpreting historical data, this is an observable thing without any “jumps” of extrapolation,
plus, the mathematics involved in the heliocentric model are simpler and more elegant, and thus fit with the general revelation of the rest of the rules of the universe.
I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.
It's not my mechanism and not my model. I already explained that I used to be a geokineticist, but when I started finding scientists who said that the geocentric model is consistent with geokineticism under GR and noted that M-M and Airey's Failure found no motion, I changed my mind.
This idea is really threatening to your worldview, isn't it?
“Can we formulate physical laws so that they are valid for all CS [coordinate systems], not only those moving uniformly, but also those moving quite arbitrarily, relative to each other? […] The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences: “the sun is at rest and the earth moves” or “the sun moves and the earth is at rest” would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS.”
Einstein, A. and Infeld, L. (1938) The Evolution of Physics, p.212 (p.248 in original 1938 ed.); Note: CS = coordinate system
“The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view.... Today we cannot say that the Copernican theory is ‘right’ and the Ptolemaic theory ‘wrong’ in any meaningful physical sense.”
Hoyle, Fred. Nicolaus Copernicus. London: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., 1973.
"...Thus we may return to Ptolemy's point of view of a 'motionless earth'...One has to show that the transformed metric can be regarded as produced according to Einstein's field equations, by distant rotating masses. This has been done by Thirring. He calculated a field due to a rotating, hollow, thick-walled sphere and proved that inside the cavity it behaved as though there were centrifugal and other inertial forces usually attributed to absolute space. Thus from Einstein's point of view, Ptolemy and Corpenicus are equally right."
Born, Max. "Einstein's Theory of Relativity",Dover Publications,1962, pgs 344 & 345:
"People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations,” Ellis argues. “For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations.” Ellis has published a paper on this. “You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
Ellis, George, in Scientific American, "Thinking Globally, Acting Universally", October 1995
So the quotes from Einstein, Hoyle, Born and Ellis aren't enough to get you started? Don't know how to google 'geocentrism' and start reading? What?
"Also, I don't understand the need to establish a Geocentric model in the first place. Scripture does not PLAINLY teach the model, only references the "...the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved." This, in my mind, refers to the establishmnet of the earth, and that no other agent than God can fundamentally alter it's position."
Well, there you go. Any geocentric passage is interpreted metaphorically. How is presenting other geocentric passages and arguments going to overcome that belief? It's not possible. You already know what you believe is PLAINLY taught and what is not.
"Quite different than the 7 day creation week, that is PLAINLY taught in Genesis 1&2, Exodus 20:8-11, etc."
In your opinion, geocentrism is NOT PLAINLY taught (even though the Bible was clearly understood as geocentric until Galileo's time) yet the 7-day creation week is PLAINLY taught?
There is nothing I can do to change your opinion. You have to do that yourself, like I did. No one changed my mind for me. I researched the idea myself and found it superior, both Scripturally and scientifically. You will have to do the same. I'm not saying I won't help and try to answer some of your questions, but you have to do this for yourself. You have all the information you need. Far more than I did when I started some 10 years ago or so.
I was not referring to you at all, rather to the audience of the debate. Ad hominem attacks work best for those that do not carefully weigh and evaluate the assertions and argumentsmade by the various parties, but rather choose the side that does a better job demeaning their opponent. Please reconsider my post in this context. I could assert that you possess poor reading comprehension, or that you jump to conclusions. However, reality is we simply miscommunicated, and I did not explicitly, contextually establish myself (and others, "us") as an observer of the debate.
Would you care to re-read the post, and attack to propositions contained therein?
Geocentric mathematics is used in all earth-orbital satellites because it is simpler in that realm and heliocentric mathematics is used in all solar system orbital satellites because it is simpler there. Convenience in mathematics is not a logical reason to adopt a worldview.
After all, the solar system is supposed to be moving through the galaxy, which is supposed to be moving through the universe, yet you don't assume that the solar system is stationary at the center of the universe because the mathematics is simpler. Nor do you adopt universal mathematics and account for all of the motions within the universe because it is supposed to represent reality. So, it is clearly a reasoning-error to say that you believe in geokineticism because interplanetary orbital calculations are easier. While that may be true, it is irrelevant.
Do you realize that GR was developed because M-M unexpectedly returned a 'null result'. Rather than drop their belief in geokineticism, physicists (including Einstein) looked for ways for make geokineticism consistent with no observable motion (both M-M and Airey's Failure) because they 'know' that the earth orbits the sun. The result was GR.
Now, it should be no surprise at all that GR was developed so that coordinate systems are consistent between geokineticism and geocentrism because the foundational observation (M-M null result) is consistent w/ geocentrism. Somehow people aren't able to see that the problem is their 'a priori' assumption of geokineticism, not observations.
In short, to argue that there is any physically significant difference at all between geokineticism and geocentrism is to argue against GR (as Hoyle makes clear).
Are you denying Newtonian gravitational attraction now? Saying that it has not been observed only calculated?
“I think perhaps Dan is pulling your leg.”
Think again.
You know guys. Copernican heliocentricity was the first ‘scientific’ issue where large numbers of people believed that the Bible had been ‘shown’ to be false. It was the camel’s nose under the tent. In reality, nothing of the sort had been done. It is the same as the Darwinian ‘revolution’ and long-ages for the earth/universe. The only support for these positions is that large numbers of people believe it.
It took 300 years from Galileo before Ernst Mach proved that the essential rules of geometry would be violated were there any classical physical difference between a geocentric and a heliocentric universe, thereby proving Galileo and Copernicus were wrong to claim that geokineticism was scientifically true. It wasn’t them and isn’t now.
It hasn’t taken nearly that long for the astronomers I quoted to say the same thing wrt GR. GR would be fundamentally violated if there were any relativistic physically significant difference between geocentrism and geokineticism.
I would think that would cause a Christian to pause and reconsider their beliefs here. Just as has been done wrt creation and a young-earth. Geokineticism is based on the same interpretation-method as evolution and an old-earth. The evidence isn’t uniquely there to favor it. Geokineticism is the last giant that opposes your faith. Once that one falls, you are entirely free.
I am free.
No need to be curt. As I stated , either model works, it is all relative to your point of view. I was hoping for links you found that were articulate, intelligent and convincing treatises on geocentrism. Thanks for the helpful tip on Google.
In your opinion, geocentrism is NOT PLAINLY taught (even though the Bible was clearly understood as geocentric until Galileo's time) yet the 7-day creation week is PLAINLY taught?
I believe the Bible is inspired, and inerrant in it's original manuscripts, and what we hold today is 99.9% the same as what was written. I'm not sure that the Bible was asserted to prove geocentrism, just that the model fit the scripture. The sun does rise and set, as we all know, from our perspective on earth. For all intents and purposes, everything revolves around the earth, since this is our home, our point of reference. I have seen 3 scripture references (1 Chron 16:30, Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10) that paraphrased state '...cannot be moved.' This could be interpreted to mean something different other than the earth is motionless in space.
The 7 day creation account, as 6 literal creation days and 1 day of rest, is firmly established, and has dramtically more scriptual support. To try to reinterpret it requires omitting, obfuscating, and allegorizing the plain intention of the written word. Also, it is crucial to our understanding of God, man, original sin, death, decay, etc.
Do you know how many assumptions are built into those calculated values? The theory has formulas, the formulas have factors, the values of the factors are assumed so that the formulas fit the theory fit the observations.
When those values don't work out, 'dark matter' is invoked or 'large iron cores' or Saturn being 'lighter than water' as necessary.
Try this. Assume that Saturn has the same density as Mercury and see if your gravitational calculations 'work'. They don't. The values are forced into the formula into the theory to fit the observations.
Not that you understand any of this...
Well, I'll have to read up more on that. Intriguing, to say the least.
Ok, what is the actual mass of the Sun? The actual mass of the Earth? The actual mass of the Moon?
Please show your work whereby your derive that gravity MUST drag the Sun around the Earth (if indeed you have settled upon Gravity as the mechanism).
And no, Geocentricism is not a threat to my “worldview”. I would have to think it had even a modicum of credibility in order to consider it a threat. I find it very amusing, like someone standing out in the rain insisting it isn't raining and they are not getting wet.
They aren't known. They are assumed based on the formulas and the theory.
Did you put Saturn in a big bathtub to make sure it really is lighter than water and that it really does float?
Apparently we can assume that you would put as much effort into ridiculing someone who believed in the Easter Bunny then.
You might reconsider that position. It gives 'early' copies of manuscripts more weight when they may not be accurate, just early. The NIV particularly suffers from this position.
You should investigate the work of Ivan Panin, who found numerical patterns in the Received Hebrew and Westcott and Hort texts that are not in other textual collections. The guy was an agnostic, studying the Gospel of John in the original Greek when he had his revelation. Became a Christian as a result. Again, Google works well.
It is the presence of the numeric pattern that indicates that you have the inspired version, not whether the text you are using is the 'earliest' known.
What is 'original' is unknowable. Basically an unfalsifiable position. No different than when the evos do it.
And it isn't much effort. I had fun doing some Newtonian calculations and showing just how off base you are with your ‘gravity from the moon is twice as strong as gravity from the sun nonsense’ (the gravity from the Sun is one hundred seventy times as strong as that from the Moon).
When something is fun you find it to not really be much of an effort. ;)
Now why is Gravity, Newtonian Physics, the heliocentricity of our planetary system, Biology and Geology such a threat to YOUR worldview? What particular Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricity and why do you feel so threatened by Newtonian Physics?
Which manuscript did he use? The TR? The MT? Greek Orthodox?
Hmmm. Calculated difference based on assumptions, 170 times. Observed effect, -2 times. But nobody sees a problem.
"Now why is Gravity, Newtonian Physics, the heliocentricity of our planetary system, Biology and Geology such a threat to YOUR worldview? What particular Biblical passages do you think support Geocentricity and why do you feel so threatened by Newtonian Physics?"
Gravity is largely unknown. When you start invoking 'dark matter' to get your model to work, it's busted whether you admit it or not. Newtonian physics isn't a problem, it's the underlying mass assumptions that nobody mentions. Heliocentricity is a philosophical belief. Geocentrism is equivalent as Einstein et al said. Biology is fine. Believing that the existence of complex, coded information w/ fault-tolerance and error-correction systems supports evolution is for the credulous and Geology is heavily interpreted and even then it has to invoke processes not observed (like 'overthrusting') to explain anomalies away.
It's largely a matter of understanding where the problems of modern science are and how they are ignored or credulously accepting what 'science' tells you.
Are you really this ignorant of Science or are you just pretending as Mr.B postulated?
Perhaps you are unaware of Astronomical spectroscopy?
Spectroscopy can determine the atomic composition of a substance that absorbs and emits light. Based upon this we know the composition of Saturn to be ~96% Hydrogen (H2), 3% Helium,~0.4% Methane, ~0.01% Ammonia, ~0.01% Hydrogen deuteride. This mixture is indeed lighter than water.
If you have problems with Spectroscopy perhaps you should take it up with Newton along with your ‘corrections’ of his mistaken notions about gravity.
I don’t know that he said which one he was using at that time.
Are you reading or just reacting?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.