Bible does not teach Geocentrism!

[hecd2]

I think the Michealson/Morley experiment can be interpreted to indicate the earth is not moving. This is truer today than when Einstein develop the theory of relativity to explain what they observed in the experiment. Einstein’s theory does not consider the interaction of sub atomic particles in space and time with light. Scientists’ need to reconsider how we interpret the results of the Michaelson/Morley experiment and one interpretation may very well be that the earth is not moving.

Do you have an alternative to SR and GR? Your alternative will need explain a lot more than the null result of Michelson and Morley. Perhaps you have a hypothesis that explains everything that GR and SR explain AND ‘the interaction of sub atomic particles in space and time with light.’ Do you?

It is MichElson-Morley by the way…no-one has ever heard of a MichAElson interferometer.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

The link below has the following quote.

“Aether scientists believe their discoveries effectively eliminate the theories of relativity and traditional views of physics and cosmology.”

aethmogen.com/wri/reprint/ebnews/p1.shtml

These guys are not looking to do away with Ceplarism. They are looking for a new energy source. But their work may very well change the way we veiw the universe and interpret Sacred Scripture.

In order to see the big picture you have to understand the very small. Either way, God is God of the very big as well as the very very small.

This is the website of another person, of whom there are an unlimited quantity, who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.Perpetual motion proponents are very common in the outermost cranky and bizarre regions of science. Try this:
pages.quicksilver.net.nz/arthorp/pulsemotr.htm

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

I

Actually, there are forces. The forces that hold the universe together. In the case of a geocentric universe you could think of gravitational, centrifigal, and others. The precession causes the universe to move up and down this path.

Balderdash. This is pure and utter balderdash. Give us the dynamical equations that describe the universe being ‘held together’; or the precession of the universe; or in the earth being held unmoving in the centre of the universe; or retract.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Reformed_Rob]

I’m curious, do any Protestants of the solascripture type ever think maybe that the language the Bible uses referring to our planet and the solar system is odd and maybe challenges at least one of their interpretive principles??

In my experience, solascripture protestants are usually young-earthers because of the Bible, but tend to believe that the earth orbits the sun. But my experience is limited, and probably most protestanss don’t think about it.

However, there’s a kid in my parish who has a shirt where it shows the world revolving around him. So who knows, maybe that’s right??

 

[hecd2]

No one is proposing something so stupid, Alec. If we see the stars wheeling around in the sky, then one simple explanation is that they are moving. Another is that the earth is turning in a field of stars. When supplanted with all the evidence that the earth is not moving (through an absolute medium), all the observations of centrality (only countered with claims of “modesty”) then the wheeling stars do become an observation which is consistent with the geocentric hypothesis (geostationary).

In other words, Mark is suggesting something as stupid (in his words) as seeing the stars wheel above our heads as we stand in the middle of a cornfield and concluding that they are in fact doing so. Mark is suggesting a return to neolithic cosmology - it’s just that he’s too embarassed to just out with it and admit it.

hecd2:

Either there is no center or 10^ 183 centers?

This is simply stating your main assumption, Alec- Friedman’s second assumption: Therer is no center (the isotropic principle).

Not so. I am saying that if one accepts that there *is *a centre, one has 10^183 (at least) centres to choose from. Why select earth as a centre? This does NOT depend on the conclusion that there is no centre. For those who are hard of understanding, I repeat again, if one accepts that there IS a centre, one has 10^183 (at least) centres to choose between.

If we were at an edge, and space were as it appears (i.e., Euclidian), then we would see many stars one direction, but if we turned and looked radially outwards (assuming sphericity, or similar), we would see nothing; therefor we would conclude that we are not at a center.

Who says we are at an edge?

So, no Alec, one simple option is that since we do see an edge

We do? what edge would that be? (don’t say the CMB without explaining why you interpret a uniform microwave signal detected on earth as an ‘edge’.)

the CMB aligned to us,

The CMB is rushing past us at 368km/s

binary star’s axis aligned to us (Barr effect)

Explained by Mason et al, Astronomical Journal 115, 821:
‘We present distributions of the eccentricity and longitude of periastron for spectroscopic binaries with elliptical orbits, and we find strong evidence of a bias in the longitude of periastron distribution (the “Barr effect”) which is probably caused by line distortions introduced by circumstellar gas…’

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’m curious, do any Protestants of the solascripture type ever think maybe that the language the Bible uses referring to our planet and the solar system is odd and maybe challenges at least one of their interpretive principles??

In my experience, solascripture protestants are usually young-earthers because of the Bible, but tend to believe that the earth orbits the sun. But my experience is limited, and probably most protestanss don’t think about it.

However, there’s a kid in my parish who has a shirt where it shows the world revolving around him. So who knows, maybe that’s right??

I think most of this anti-scientific nonsense is of US vintage. Some of it - such as the bitter animosity to the critical & historically-minded study of the Bible - would not have been out of place in Victorian Britain; but the geocentricism, & and the use of the Bible as an all-sufficient source of information on everything from US history to the value of π, comes from a world older than that.​

As for “by Scripture alone” - it never bothered me; it worked all right. It’s only on boards like this that one wastes time kicking holes in the faith of other Christians - not in real life. Understood within its own terms, as the historically conditioned thing it is, BSA has worked, & still works, perfectly well.

And even Catholics, for all their playing fast & loose with Tradition so that it is made to yield only those results that suit Catholic orthodoxy (itself a very malleable thing), have to interpret the Bible vaguely at one point, realistically at another, literally at another, & figuratively at another, or even ignore it entirely, at times, to get it to suit Catholic teaching. Catholic exegesis is as unsatisfactory as Protestant BSA exegesis - the only way to avoid the biasses which are built in to both, is to leave them both behind & adopt the historico-critical method or one similar to it, since this is not aligned with any religious body. But exegesis which is required to come up with those answers only that suit a reigning orthodoxy, are made dishonest from the very start; they are no better than propaganda for the reigning party line, & look no less foolish when that line is changed. So exegesis has to be free from interference, if it is to be honest, or else it’s good for nothing. Science can’t be meddled with so that it may be kept ideologically pure either.