Does the sun really revolve around the earth?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rarndt01
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
JimG:
His strangest claim is that the earth does not rotate on its axis.
Click to expand...
I am surpised that he makes this claim because it is easily refuted by relativity. If the earth does not rotate, then the stars, which traverse about the earth must move faster than the speed of light. The closest star, (after the sun) is about four light years away from us. Yet, if it moved a complete 360 degrees about the earth, it would have to traverse a distance of roughly 2pi*(four light years), or about 24 light years, in a single day.

One of the results of relativity is that the speed of light is the ulitmate speed. Hence if he wants to use relativity to say there is no way to tell whether the earth revolves about the sun or vice versa, he should abandon the idea that the earth does not rotate on its axis. He can’t accept relativity and not accept it at the same time.

Just my two cents.
 
The Barrister:
This is not the only dangerous and disingenuous “Biblical” position that Mr. Sungenis has taken, but it certainly helps brand him as one of the kookiest apologists out there.
Click to expand...
“Kooks” are easy to discredit… take your best shot or be silent.

It would not be beneath you to simply say you are not learned in that field, and just don’t know.
 
40.png
neophyte:
Really, Sungenis is making much ado about nothing.
Click to expand...
On the contrary, he only posts his theory on his site… not everywhere else. So it appears he is not the one making a big deal about it.

And if a “radical” theory about something discredits one on other things (like being an apologist), I guess we should all stop now… except those who remain perfect posters.

MrS
 
Some years ago I watched Paul Crouch and some of his guests on TBN denouncing science, specifically warnng believers about the subtle sabotage of Biblical cosmology by modern physicists and astronomers. Needless to say, this information was being beamed via satellite to an electronic quantum mechanical device in my living room…
 
40.png
Cherubino:
Some years ago I watched Paul Crouch and some of his guests on TBN denouncing science, specifically warnng believers about the subtle sabotage of Biblical cosmology by modern physicists and astronomers. Needless to say, this information was being beamed via satellite to an electronic quantum mechanical device in my living room…
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

but what were you doing watching that… :hmmm:
 
40.png
rarndt01:
Noted Catholic apologist and prolific writer Robert Sungenis insists that the sun revolves around the earth. His website is found at Catholic Apologetics International. He bases his belief on how the early Catholic church viewed astronomy before Galalio. Plus he claims even today, no one can prove that the earth revolves around the sun, but vice versa.

I just can’t accept Mr Sungenis’ belief, because both the sun and the earth have a magnetic field. Doesn’t the larger body control the smaller one? And earth is by far the smaller body of gravitational force.

It is amazing though that the early church did believe the earth was the center of all the universe and all stars and planetary objects revolved around the earth. What do you think and say about all this? Can you prove that the earth does revolve around the sun?

Ron from Ohio
Click to expand...
Hello Ron,

Physically, the earth rotates around the sun. Spiritually the Sun and cosmos were created around the earth which was created around, free willed, love for God capable, man.

Time is a measurement of mass, energy and empty space, all of which were created by our Omni-Powerful, Omni-Present to all physical time God. God’s focus is on a free willed being who has the capacity to choose to love Him. Therefore, creation flows out into infinite past physical “time” and infinite future physical “time” form our Omni-Present to all created “time” God’s focal point of Adam.

Please visit Jesus Loves God and Creation

Obviously pre-Galileo Church leaders did not know the concepts of physics, all of which our Omni-Present to all physical “time”, God created from the focal point of Adam. We do now understand physics and the cosmos. This Robert Sungenis and the Protestants who demand that “God” must conform into what scientific data says, in reality, do a discredit to the true Power of our, Omni-Present to all physical created time, God.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
40.png
AlanFromWichita:
Einstein once answered a reporter who asked what relativity was, something to the effect “if you sit on a hot stove for a minute you think it’s an hour. If you sit with a pretty girl for an hour you think it’s a minute.”

It’s all in how you look at it.

CAI claims that the proof that the earth rotates around the sun cannot be based on “appeals to simplicity” and that any given “mathematical model” does not constitute reality. To back this up, they assert that a mathematical model could be built that makes Jupiter the center of the universe.

Given their conditions, they are correct. There is no absolute answer to whether the sun, or the whole universe for that matter, revolves around the earth. It can neither be proven nor disproven because the basis on which we say “the earth revolves around the sun” is based on a mathematical and geometric model that is chosen solely for its simplicity. /QUOTE]

The last time I got close to physics was high school, and we won’t talk about how long ago that was…

However, it cannot be proven nor disproven… Has anyone launched a satelite based on any mathematecal model other than sun-centric? Or are you saying that the mathematical model that Jupiter (or the earth, take your pick) will ultimately be the same as a sun-centric model, never mind how convoluted it is? I am assuming that the convolutions are not simply mathematical shorthand for removing whatever doesn’t jibe with the Jupiter thory vis a vis reality, until what is left is the math for the suncentric model.
Click to expand...
 
Ecce Homo:
I am surpised that he makes this claim because it is easily refuted by relativity. If the earth does not rotate, then the stars, which traverse about the earth must move faster than the speed of light. The closest star, (after the sun) is about four light years away from us. Yet, if it moved a complete 360 degrees about the earth, it would have to traverse a distance of roughly 2pi*(four light years), or about 24 light years, in a single day.

One of the results of relativity is that the speed of light is the ulitmate speed. Hence if he wants to use relativity to say there is no way to tell whether the earth revolves about the sun or vice versa, he should abandon the idea that the earth does not rotate on its axis. He can’t accept relativity and not accept it at the same time.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...
Yes, that makes sense to me. But I would hate to see Sungenis’ convoluted response to it, which would boil down to something like “all motion is relative anyway.”
 
40.png
rarndt01:
Noted Catholic apologist and prolific writer Robert Sungenis insists that the sun revolves around the earth. His website is found at Catholic Apologetics International. He bases his belief on how the early Catholic church viewed astronomy before Galalio. Plus he claims even today, no one can prove that the earth revolves around the sun, but vice versa.

I just can’t accept Mr Sungenis’ belief, because both the sun and the earth have a magnetic field. Doesn’t the larger body control the smaller one? And earth is by far the smaller body of gravitational force.

It is amazing though that the early church did believe the earth was the center of all the universe and all stars and planetary objects revolved around the earth. What do you think and say about all this? Can you prove that the earth does revolve around the sun?

Ron from Ohio
Click to expand...
Of technical interest only, you might like to know that you are both correct. Since the sun is not infinite in mass, both bodies revolve about their center of mass (perturbed by other planets and stars of course), so in some measure they revolve about each other. This is true in the case of the moon and the earth as well.

Just for grins! Modern science accepts the solar-centric view and it is perfectly obvious that the other planets do not revolve about the earth. The math is all wrong (Kepler’s law?)
 
Has anyone launched a satelite based on any mathematecal model other than sun-centric? Or are you saying that the mathematical model that Jupiter (or the earth, take your pick) will ultimately be the same as a sun-centric model, never mind how convoluted it is? I am assuming that the convolutions are not simply mathematical shorthand for removing whatever doesn’t jibe with the Jupiter thory vis a vis reality, until what is left is the math for the suncentric model.
Click to expand...
I doubt that anyone would have ever done calculations for satellite launches for a Jupiter-centric model, even though it could be done in principle. Either model could tell you when to fire the rockets, how long to let them burn, etc.; it’s just a different way of mathematically describing the same underlying physical reality. The difference is that it would probably take days to do calculations in the Jupiter-centric frame that would take five minutes in the center-of-mass frame. They are both “accurate” descriptions, in that if you perform all of the calculations correctly, you will get the desired results. But one is vastly more complicated with no additional benefits (and indeed, many more chances for errors).
 
40.png
otm:
However, it cannot be proven nor disproven… Has anyone launched a satelite based on any mathematecal model other than sun-centric? Or are you saying that the mathematical model that Jupiter (or the earth, take your pick) will ultimately be the same as a sun-centric model, never mind how convoluted it is? I am assuming that the convolutions are not simply mathematical shorthand for removing whatever doesn’t jibe with the Jupiter thory vis a vis reality, until what is left is the math for the suncentric model.
Click to expand...
Dear otm,

To answer your direct questions, I agree with JPrejean.

FYI, I thought you might be interested in brushing up on the basics of relativity if you aren’t already on it. When I was in college (1977-1981) we learned about parts of Einstein’s special theory but nothing about his general theory. I just recently read a book which was about string theory, but it gave an brief review of relativity, both special and general, and quantum theory.

Actually the string theory stuff was so “thick” that it started to sound like a far-out religion after a while and I never finished the book. The layman’s review of relativity, though, was better than any I’d ever seen before, and made it worth reading the book just for that chapter. I knew special theory was about straight-line motion without acceleration. The general theory includes acceleration, curved motion, gravity, and some really bizarre consequences thereof such as curved space.

The book is fairly new; a friend loaned it to me. It is The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

Alan
 
No. It’s curious that during the Enlightenment, the scientific community gradually in a very daring way, challenged the Church and the establishment to suggest an alternate which we commonly accept today.

It was on NOVA or someplace that said the original view has not been entirely abandoned. The earth is still used as a reference point in many ways, since any other is totally arbitrary.

The earth is rotating at some 1100 hundred miles per hour (and you may notice the circular definition that involves – oh, no pun intended) and the solar system is also moving incredibly fast, and our galaxy is moving as well. I forget the figures. The Milky Way has a black hole at its center and everything goes around it.

The revolution has a stated value of 1 per 30,000 years or so, which account for meteor bombardments on earth of a similar period – as I’ve been told. But, I digress.

If you caught the Origins series recently on PBS, some planetary systems have been found where there are Jupiter-like planets circling their suns at amazing speeds, with an orbit of their sun equivalent to once every four earth days.

I digressed, but I think the issue revolves around the sense of scripture. It is not intended to be a science manual. Its meaning must be sought at other levels.
 
First, we have to remember that all motion is relative.

Relative to what?

Relative to the point of reference.

From the earth all motion moves in a fashion relative to the viewer (the relative distance to the center of the earth allows us to mathmatically pick that as a center point for convienence in the case of the solar system).

The sun moving around the earth (along with all the other planets and their moons) is mathmetically equivalent to a sun centered solar system. That is to say the prediction results are the same. However, it is a lot simpler with the sun in the middle. Apply Ockham’s rasor and we have the standard principle.

If you want proof of what I said see which model a planetarium uses to project the night sky on the wall. It isn’t sun centered. The only problem I can see in teaching a sun-centered universe (and it is really with our educational system) is that we are teaching kids not to trust what they see day in and day out.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
 
40.png
CatholicMatthew:
First, we have to remember that all motion is relative.

Relative to what?

Relative to the point of reference.

From the earth all motion moves in a fashion relative to the viewer (the relative distance to the center of the earth allows us to mathmatically pick that as a center point for convienence in the case of the solar system).

The sun moving around the earth (along with all the other planets and their moons) is mathmetically equivalent to a sun centered solar system. That is to say the prediction results are the same. However, it is a lot simpler with the sun in the middle. Apply Ockham’s rasor and we have the standard principle.

If you want proof of what I said see which model a planetarium uses to project the night sky on the wall. It isn’t sun centered. The only problem I can see in teaching a sun-centered universe (and it is really with our educational system) is that we are teaching kids not to trust what they see day in and day out.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew
Click to expand...
What seems to have been ignored in this thread (apologies to anyone who mentioned it that I have missed) is the fact that any frame of reference located on the earth’s surface (a non-inertial frame) is different from an inertial frame. All forces in an inertial frame are resolved, but in a non-inertial frame residual forces exist; in the case of the earth, coriolis and centrifugal forces arising from diurnal and annual rotation. These forces can be easily measured. It is fallacious to reason from the correct premise that it is possible to perform an instantaneous mathematical transform between any pair of frames, to the conclusion that all frames are equivalent. When we say the earth spins on its axis and that it orbits the sun, we are saying something that is true and non-trivial - these are more than relativie ‘point of view’ statements.

Mach’s principle states that the universal frame is measured against the mean of the stellar field. Debate stiill rages as to whether GR is Machian, but for the purposes of this debate that is complex and subtle and we can consider that there is an absolute reference frame that is something like Machian.

Alec
homepage.ntlworld.com/macandrew/Grenada_disaster/Grenada_disaster.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top