Deny geocentricism - deny the Virgin Birth

  • Thread starter Thread starter cassini
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
i dont understand why the sun must be stationary. we have observational evidence that the sun is the center of the solar system. it being stationary would seem to be unimportant
Heliocentric means “sun centered”, which implies the sun to be at rest. This cannot be viewed as a reality, but mearly a prefered or special frame of reference. If you allow motion to the sun, the planetary orbits become more complicated, as the geocentric model demonstrate.Also, while you take good care in identifying the sun as the center of our solar system, the Copernican system used the term universe, which clearly is erronious.
i dont see how a philosophical or religious setting influences the observational evidence.
Observation is a relative act ; we observe the sun rising and setting relative to a prefered frame of reference, being geocentric,or, if you wish, observer centric,itself being the most logical when used philosophically.We use the heliocentric frame of reference scientifically in order to better understand and calculate the orbits of the planets around the sun, this, being mearly a sun centered prefered frame of reference, since as we know, the sun itself is moving relative to the universe
geocentrism is proven false by that evidence.
How specifically is it proven?

Andre
 
Hmm… yes heliocentrism isn’t completely correct, but its a lot more accurate than geocentrism. It was a scientific theory that improved upon the existing theory. Of course its not completely correct.
I fully agree that heliocentrism is a superior scientific model than the geocentric one when one calculates planetary orbits; however it must be inferior to the philosophical model since even today we have no means of describing the movements of the sun, moon and stars outside the geocentric observation. How could one describe the observation of the sun setting and rising using only the movement of the earth?
Sure, geocentrism has a lot of use for philosophy and day-to-day things here on earth. It’s a lot more convenient to say that the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening. But you can’t argue that it is more accurate.
The use of the word “convenient” is inacurate. It is actually the only way we can describe the observation, making geocentrism superior to the heliocentric model in this specific case.
Accuracy is also attained much better in the geocentric model, since we catalogue the movements of the moon stars and sun relative to each other by using the geocentric model, not the heliocentric one.

Andre
 
Okay, then you should have no problem producing a peer-reviewed scientific study declaring that they have falsified geocentrism. Can we see one please? After all, we’ve been waiting for 400 years since Galileo “proved” it.
are you sure you know what falsified means? it just means testable.

even better than peer review i have pictures from voyager:)

solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam3.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam2.gif
solarviews.com/raw/misc/vgr_fam1.gif

they were taken by voyager in 1990, here is the source site

solarviews.com/cap/index/solarsystem1.html

read 'em and weep 🙂
 
Who can deny the evidence of our eyes, a geocentric word into which God created us? Is there a more fitting place for God made man to be born and die? Who wants to throw this visible sign of God back in His face and adopt instead the word and world of the Devil, heretics, freemasons, agnostics and atheists? I don’t.

Do not tell me the mind-physics of heliocentricists disallows a geocentric universe. The history of theoretal physics allways allows for a H answer only. This was obvious when two experiments , the Airy test and the M&M experiment backfired on them and produced evidence for an immobile earth. It was their need to re-establish a moving earth that gave rise to a pervert called Einstein who hadn’t an idea of his own but who was allowed to plaguarise the ideas of others. What resulted was more rubbish, two twins, each older than the other.

If God permits, a new order for the universe will arise and it will accommodate geocentricism. It will be the unifying gravitational electromagnetic universe, now becoming very popular in physics.
 
here are the same geocentrism destroying photographs straight from NASA nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html

but i believe the geocentric viewpoint is more like a crackpot conspiracy club. so lets hear all the stories about how this cant be right and it was planned the masons, or the illuminati, or the folks at area51 back before the voyager launch in 1977.

maybe they faked these photos on the same sound stage they faked the moon landing :rotfl:
 
here are the same geocentrism destroying photographs straight from NASA nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-solarsystem.html

but i believe the geocentric viewpoint is more like a crackpot conspiracy club. so lets hear all the stories about how this cant be right and it was planned the masons, or the illuminati, or the folks at area51 back before the voyager launch in 1977.

maybe they faked these photos on the same sound stage they faked the moon landing :rotfl:
‘Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep?’ — (Job. 38:33-37).

‘Give me but one firm point on which to stand, and I will move the earth’ wrote Archimedes (287-212BC); unwittingly coining for posterity the problem asked of Job (man) above. Let me explain. In the Bible, God occasionally makes important statements by way of questions. In the Book of Job, the Creator tells pride-prone man that we are intellectual inferiors when compared to the great mystery that is Him and His creation. Here above we find Job being asked if he knows the order of the cosmos, by what means it is so ordered and reminding him that it is He alone who created it, fully understands it, and maintains it.
No doubt most believe modern science has, or will, figured out the full nature of the universe, its origins and laws and that its movements are caused by ‘gravity’. The truth of course is that the above challenge is as valid today as it was in Job’s time and will remain so if man thinks he can reason it all out by himself. One of the problems for man’s science is the phenomenon of space. The simple fact is that in space there is no ‘empirical’ way of knowing the true order of the universe and therefore its laws, for the simple reason that unless we know for certain of a body in it that is fixed, ‘a firm point’ against which all celestial movements can be identified, then it is impossible to prove if it is geocentric or heliocentric. This insurmountable problem is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look back at it would it be possible for us to see the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place and are never likely to reach beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, our view of the order for universe will always be little more than guesswork. ( This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself.)

Warp. Little do you know but you are barking up a false tree. Who told you that from inside a system you can determine the order of it. It would be like a man inside a watch trying to figure out its mechanism. The pictures you are showing everyone do not show a heliocentric system. If the universe is moving around the earth you will get the very same pictures.

And there lies the big problem with Copernican thought. So biased are you in youir thinking you cannot comprehend the two sides of relativity. If you could be neutral for an hour, and try to be objective for once, remember that there are two ways to describe the one phenomenon, a H way and a G way. So producing the H way and calling it a proof shows a lack of understanding.
 
Let me list some of the denials. First St Robert Bellarmine is cast as an incompetent.
No one has suggested this. Yet he was not infallible in all his statements. He was not divine. He also only had a seventeenth century understanding of science. These obvious facts in no way disparage the man. However, this whole thread shows the danger of sola tradition, in which each Catholic interprets tradition for himself. The Catholic Church does not disdain all Church teaching from the first to the seventeenth century as some have suggested. Most of the Catholic doctrine taught today originated in this time. But neither does the Catholic Church stagnate at any time.
 
‘Dost thou know the order of heaven, and canst thou
set down the reason thereof on the earth? Who can
declare the order of the heavens or who can make
the harmony of heaven to sleep?’ — (Job. 38:33-37).

‘Give me but one firm point on which to stand, and I will move the earth’ wrote Archimedes (287-212BC); unwittingly coining for posterity the problem asked of Job (man) above. Let me explain. In the Bible, God occasionally makes important statements by way of questions. In the Book of Job, the Creator tells pride-prone man that we are intellectual inferiors when compared to the great mystery that is Him and His creation. Here above we find Job being asked if he knows the order of the cosmos, by what means it is so ordered and reminding him that it is He alone who created it, fully understands it, and maintains it.
No doubt most believe modern science has, or will, figured out the full nature of the universe, its origins and laws and that its movements are caused by ‘gravity’. The truth of course is that the above challenge is as valid today as it was in Job’s time and will remain so if man thinks he can reason it all out by himself. One of the problems for man’s science is the phenomenon of space. The simple fact is that in space there is no ‘empirical’ way of knowing the true order of the universe and therefore its laws, for the simple reason that unless we know for certain of a body in it that is fixed, ‘a firm point’ against which all celestial movements can be identified, then it is impossible to prove if it is geocentric or heliocentric. This insurmountable problem is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason. Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look back at it would it be possible for us to see the true order and harmony of its many movements. But because we are confined within our place and are never likely to reach beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, our view of the order for universe will always be little more than guesswork. ( This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself.)

Warp. Little do you know but you are barking up a false tree. Who told you that from inside a system you can determine the order of it. It would be like a man inside a watch trying to figure out its mechanism. The pictures you are showing everyone do not show a heliocentric system. If the universe is moving around the earth you will get the very same pictures.

And there lies the big problem with Copernican thought. So biased are you in youir thinking you cannot comprehend the two sides of relativity. If you could be neutral for an hour, and try to be objective for once, remember that there are two ways to describe the one phenomenon, a H way and a G way. So producing the H way and calling it a proof shows a lack of understanding.
Geocentricism is NOT a Church teaching and Catholics do NOT have to believe it.
 
know for certain of a body in it that is fixed, ‘a firm point’ against which all celestial movements can be identified, then it is impossible to prove if it is geocentric or heliocentric. This insurmountable problem is called relative movement in space, and this simple relativity was once, and has become again, an accepted fact by all of sane and sound reason.
thats not even close to true, you only need information of their relative speeds and positions over time
Only if we could position ourselves outside the universe and look back at it would it be possible for us to see the true order and harmony of its many movements.
what do you think those pics are?
But because we are confined within our place and are never likely to reach beyond the stars for the purpose of observation and communication, our view of the order for universe will always be little more than guesswork.
or we could use pictures, like the ones we have
( This concept can be recognised by modern academics through Kurt Gödel’s second incompleteness theorem, that full validity of a system, including a scientific one, cannot be demonstrated within that system itself.)
like the pics we have from voyager, outside the system?
Warp. Little do you know but you are barking up a false tree. Who told you that from inside a system you can determine the order of it. It would be like a man inside a watch trying to figure out its mechanism.
thats why the pics from outside the system settle the issue.
The pictures you are showing everyone do not show a heliocentric system. If the universe is moving around the earth you will get the very same pictures.
pictures dont lie
And there lies the big problem with Copernican thought. So biased are you in youir thinking you cannot comprehend the two sides of relativity. If you could be neutral for an hour, and try to be objective for once, remember that there are two ways to describe the one phenomenon, a H way and a G way. So producing the H way and calling it a proof shows a lack of understanding.
i have pictures that disprove geocentrism. the fact that you cant admit it when presented with undeniable evidence is making my point about that whole idea being crackpottery.

you can expect to see these photos anytime i see a post on geocentrism:)
 
Heliocentric means “sun centered”, which implies the sun to be at rest. This cannot be viewed as a reality, but mearly a prefered or special frame of reference. If you allow motion to the sun, the planetary orbits become more complicated, as the geocentric model demonstrate.Also, while you take good care in identifying the sun as the center of our solar system, the Copernican system used the term universe, which clearly is erronious.

Observation is a relative act ; we observe the sun rising and setting relative to a prefered frame of reference, being geocentric,or, if you wish, observer centric,itself being the most logical when used philosophically.We use the heliocentric frame of reference scientifically in order to better understand and calculate the orbits of the planets around the sun, this, being mearly a sun centered prefered frame of reference, since as we know, the sun itself is moving relative to the universe

How specifically is it proven?

Andre
with the pics i posted
 
with the pics i posted
If we look at the **Diagram of Portrait
NASA diagram of how the frames for the Solar System Family Portrait were taken. **, which is what I presume you are refering to. All we actually see is a group of planets with the sun. The orbits are added in order to show a heliocentric view. What I mean by this, is, the picture showing the orbits, is not what Voyager 2 actually captured, since this would represent a time lag way, way ,way, too long…the picture is simply a picture… without any movements involved.Therefore from the picture itself, nothing can be proven, since no movements of anything is involved. Again, the orbits were added in order for us to view a heliocentric frame…a frame of reference which is
indeed the prefered frame used by astronomers, but is ,by far, not the only reality in existance.

Andre
 
If we look at the **Diagram of Portrait
NASA diagram of how the frames for the Solar System Family Portrait were taken. **, which is what I presume you are refering to. All we actually see is a group of planets with the sun. The orbits are added in order to show a heliocentric view. What I mean by this, is, the picture showing the orbits, is not what Voyager 2 actually captured, since this would represent a time lag way, way ,way, too long…the picture is simply a picture… without any movements involved.Therefore from the picture itself, nothing can be proven, since no movements of anything is involved. Again, the orbits were added in order for us to view a heliocentric frame…a frame of reference which is
indeed the prefered frame used by astronomers, but is ,by far, not the only reality in existance.

Andre
see the frames that overlap? those provide more than one data point, that allows orbits to be plotted.
 
The use of the word “convenient” is inacurate. It is actually the only way we can describe the observation, making geocentrism superior to the heliocentric model in this specific case.
I’ll give it a shot at describing the “rising and setting” of the sun without using geocentric terms:

Rising: The sun appears above the horizon
Setting: The sun disappears below the horizon
 
Hey Neil, I’m not an expert in science either, but I do know that a ‘non-inertial reference frame’ can mean, as we saw in their quote, using an immobile earth as a reference point, which scientists do all the time when they launch rockets into space.
I guess non-inertial just means that you can set the origin at earth to measure positions of everything else. Sure you can do that, but it doesn’t work when you take inertia into account. That’s what I was getting at by saying that the inertia of the sun would be too great for the earth to make it revolve around the earth.
No, God set everything in motion in the beginning, as the Church Fathers taught. So, to answer your questions, just imagine that God created a spherical, bounded universe so perfectly balanced and fine tuned that the earth is the immobile gravitational center. Go ahead and ask a scientist if this is feasible,
When you’re at the center of a massive body, like you’re proposing, there is no gravitational force at all, since you are pulled equally in all directions. If you could dig a hole to the center of the earth, you would weigh nothing down there. It’s the same as what you are proposing, and it wouldn’t create a force on the sun.
 
see the frames that overlap? those provide more than one data point, that allows orbits to be plotted.
Warp, read this and weep. You think your pictures falsify geocentrism because they show that the planets rotate around the sun; but what you seem to be completely unaware of is that nobody is disputing that the OTHER planets rotate around the sun! We’re not talking about the Ptolemaic system we’re talking about the Tychonic system!
After the Galileo affair, which transpired early in the 17th century, Copernicanism was officially forbidden to astronomers in the Roman Catholic Church; the Tychonic system was a religiously acceptable alternative that matched available observations.
And the fact remains: we can’t tell if the earth is rotating through the universe or if the universe is rotating around the earth - under relativity. This is why nobody who knows what they’re talking about says that geocentrism has been falsified. This is why you cannot produce a scientific study that says that it has falsified geocentrism. This is why Wikipedia does not say that geocentrism has been falsified. Because it hasn’t!

Finally, the Church never said the heresy had anything to do with the other planets. The heresy Galileo was convicted of was saying that the earth rotated around the sun, when the Church declared that the sun rotated around an immobile earth. Galileo was wrong - the Church was right! :dancing:
 
Warp, read this and weep. You think your pictures falsify geocentrism because they show that the planets rotate around the sun; but what you seem to be completely unaware of is that nobody is disputing that the OTHER planets rotate around the sun! We’re not talking about the Ptolemaic system we’re talking about the Tychonic system!

And the fact remains: we can’t tell if the earth is rotating through the universe or if the universe is rotating around the earth - under relativity. This is why nobody who knows what they’re talking about says that geocentrism has been falsified. This is why you cannot produce a scientific study that says that it has falsified geocentrism. This is why Wikipedia does not say that geocentrism has been falsified. Because it hasn’t!

Finally, the Church never said the heresy had anything to do with the other planets. The heresy Galileo was convicted of was saying that the earth rotated around the sun, **when the Church declared that the sun rotated around an immobile earth. **Galileo was wrong - the Church was right! :dancing:
This is not something Catholics have to believe and its not a Church teaching.
 
Warp, read this and weep. You think your pictures falsify geocentrism because they show that the planets rotate around the sun; but what you seem to be completely unaware of is that nobody is disputing that the OTHER planets rotate around the sun! We’re not talking about the Ptolemaic system we’re talking about the Tychonic system!

And the fact remains: we can’t tell if the earth is rotating through the universe or if the universe is rotating around the earth - under relativity. This is why nobody who knows what they’re talking about says that geocentrism has been falsified. This is why you cannot produce a scientific study that says that it has falsified geocentrism. This is why Wikipedia does not say that geocentrism has been falsified. Because it hasn’t!

Finally, the Church never said the heresy had anything to do with the other planets. The heresy Galileo was convicted of was saying that the earth rotated around the sun, when the Church declared that the sun rotated around an immobile earth. Galileo was wrong - the Church was right! :dancing:
sorry, the earth is circling the sun, regardless of the model you claim geocentrism is falsified by observation…keep wiggling though, im getting a good laugh at the crackpottery:whacky:
 
see the frames that overlap? those provide more than one data point, that allows orbits to be plotted.
Which would only show the picture to have been taken while
the Voyager was traveling in a non- orbital manner relative to the sun.
Again do not think that I am claiming heliocentrism as being erronious because I am not. I am saying that the geocentric model is superior to the heliocentric one when used philosophically. We are mearly using different frames of references for different situations.

Dr.of Astronomy Fred Hoyle, for example, wrote:

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. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism"


There is no problem with the Copernican theory; Copernicus was never confronted by any religious court, and he lived close to 100 years before Galileo. However, Galileo should not have used the Copernican model to claim it as the only truth that could be accepted, and in doing so, claim that scriptures were either erronious or that we needed to change the interpretation thereof, when reading the sun was standing still for Joshua. I believe that Galileo was wrong in this particular case.

Andre
 
I’ll give it a shot at describing the “rising and setting” of the sun without using geocentric terms:

Rising: The sun appears above the horizon
Setting: The sun disappears below the horizon
No, Neil; this is still a geocentric frame of observation. This is the way we catalogue the movements of the celestial bodies…from a geocentric view, not a heliocentric one.

Andre
 
Which would only show the picture to have been taken while the Voyager was traveling in a non- orbital manner relative to the sun.
how is that bad? that removes voyager from any relationship with the solar system allowing the pics to show the entire system, with multiple data points to plot the orbits, the earth orbits the sun, as do all the planets.

we have observational evidence, geocentrism is proven false.

i dont care about philosophy, or anything else in regard to this subject, only that geocentrism is proven false

the pictures tell the whole truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top