Geocentrism: Gary Hoge's Demonstration Disproven?

[scm]

buffalo:

Does anyone know where the center of the universe is?

Center is an ambiguous term. For instance, there may be a geometric center. Is that the center? There is a center of mass. How about that? Center of spin?
Or are you asking for the economic center?
Or the spiritual center? Or the center of population?

A lot of people think the center of the universe is themselves.
I guess that would put the center on earth somewhere, but its a moving target.

 

[buffalo]

JimG:

If the universe is found to be a positively curved 3-dimensional space, that is–shaped like a sphere whose surface is three-dimensional–then spatially, it really has no center. If that conception is correct, one could start out from any point on the sphere (that is, from any galaxy, star, or planet anywhere), travel in a straight line and return to one’s starting point by circumnavigating the universe.
So why isn’t it plausible the earth could be considered the center. And if what your saying is true certainly theologically one could say the earth is the center.

 

[scm]

buffalo:

So why isn’t it plausible the earth could be considered the center. And if what your saying is true certainly theologically one could say the earth is the center.

Why is it so important to say, theologically, the earth is the center of the universe? The Scriptures don’t say that.

 

[buffalo]

scm:

Why is it so important to say, theologically, the earth is the center of the universe? The Scriptures don’t say that.

Genesis sure does suggest it.

 

[SocaliCatholic]

SocaliCatholic:

What physical properties does the earth possess that would cause the entire universe to rotate around it rather than another planet with like properties?

Okay now back to disproving evolution…

trth_skr:

The universe is rotating, and trying to maintain its center through gyroscopic stabilization. The earrth happens to be in the center and by this virtue is stabilized. In fact the monentum of the rotating universe is used to haelp stabilze the earth.

Thanks for the interesting thread.

So if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that it is not so much any unique physical property of the earth that makes it the center, but it happened to be **placed ** in the center after the universe was created?

Don’t these two statements contradict?

trth_skr:

The earrth happens to be in the center and by this virtue is stabilized.

trth_skr:

In fact the monentum of the rotating universe is used to haelp stabilze the earth.

 

[JimG]

buffalo:

Genesis sure does suggest it.

Well, Genesis suggests the same view of the world that one would get from observation only, if one were to walk out into the center of a big wheatfield in the middle of Kansas, and look up at the clear blue sky:

It looks like you are standing on a vast circular surface (the earth) over which is placed a big transparent hemispherical bowl, (the firmament) above which is copious blue water.(the waters above the firmament). But if you lived in the Mediterranean* basin you would also be aware of the surrounding ocean (“the waters below the firmament.”)

*“Mediterranean” means “in the middle of the earth,” which is where the writers of Genesis thought they were living.

So that’s the Genesis cosmology. It’s just based on human observation, not science. And the scriptures were intended to teach religion, not science. So the Genesis cosmology is not binding as science.

Using my analogy of the universe as shaped like a sphere: If you want to take one point on a sphere, and try to revolve all other points on the sphere around it, how would that work? You could put an axis through that point and then revolve the sphere. But it changes nothing about the shape. And in that case, there would be two motionless points–at each end of the axis. (i.e. north pole and south pole.)

 

[Steve_Andersen]

Not if your axis of rotation was tangential to the sphere

I’m not quite sure how than would work in 4 dimensions

But smart-Alex, wise guy that I am I just had to say it

But again like trth_skr’s model of a stationary earth, while it might fit some visual observations it would not fit with other observed data.

 

[JimG]

Steve Andersen:

Not if your axis of rotation was tangential to the sphere

Hmm, I think I see your point. Now, I’m picturing a sphere fixed at one point as if on a single ball-bearing, that point being called ‘earth’ and the whole sphere swinging around that point. Using a 3-dimensional model, it seems like it could rotate in an infinite number of planes of rotation.

Still, it seems less satisfying than standard cosmological theory.

 

[trth_skr]

SocaliCatholic:

Thanks for the interesting thread.

So if I understand you correctly, you are claiming that it is not so much any unique physical property of the earth that makes it the center, but it happened to be **placed **in the center after the universe was created?

Don’t these two statements contradict?

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
The earrth happens to be in the center and by this virtue is stabilized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trth_skr
In fact the monentum of the rotating universe is used to haelp stabilze the earth.

No, I do not see a conflict. The universe, being gyroscopically stabilized will use its momentum to stabilize its center, just like a top. The earth happens to have been placed in the center, so by this virtue it is stabilizd by the universe. The earth would be the center of mass of the universe in this view.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

scm:

Why is it so important to say, theologically, the earth is the center of the universe? The Scriptures don’t say that.

scm:

The Fathers of the Church disagree with your view. They were Geoecntrists, and not out of some ignorance of “modern science”. The issue was philosophical then (i.e., early first centuries through Galileo), and still is.

Three Popes disagree with your view in official declarations. No Pope has yet to overturn the three Popes (and no, JPII did not; though it is apparent what his personal opinion may be).

Unfortunately for you, the Fathers interpretation of Scripture has more authority than your personal opinion, or even the opinion of any “modern” theologian.

So its your opinion vs. the Holy Spirit. I know whose view I will stick with.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[buffalo]

JimG:

Well, Genesis suggests the same view of the world that one would get from observation only, if one were to walk out into the center of a big wheatfield in the middle of Kansas, and look up at the clear blue sky:

It looks like you are standing on a vast circular surface (the earth) over which is placed a big transparent hemispherical bowl, (the firmament) above which is copious blue water.(the waters above the firmament). But if you lived in the Mediterranean* basin you would also be aware of the surrounding ocean (“the waters below the firmament.”)

*“Mediterranean” means “in the middle of the earth,” which is where the writers of Genesis thought they were living.

So that’s the Genesis cosmology. It’s just based on human observation, not science. And the scriptures were intended to teach religion, not science. So the Genesis cosmology is not binding as science.

Using my analogy of the universe as shaped like a sphere: If you want to take one point on a sphere, and try to revolve all other points on the sphere around it, how would that work? You could put an axis through that point and then revolve the sphere. But it changes nothing about the shape. And in that case, there would be two motionless points–at each end of the axis. (i.e. north pole and south pole.)

Except Genesis is part of Revelation. And even though scripture is not a science book, since it is true, has some truth of science in it. The key is to find it.

 

[scm]

trth_skr:

No, I do not see a conflict. The universe, being gyroscopically stabilized will use its momentum to stabilize its center, just like a top. The earth happens to have been placed in the center, so by this virtue it is stabilizd by the universe. The earth would be the center of mass of the universe in this view.

www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

If the earth is at the center of mass of the universe, and the universe is rotating around the earth, you are saying the center of rotation is at the center of mass, yet you also say one posible explaination for the “anual precession” of the universe is that the universe is an unbalanced gyroscopic system. If the center of mass is at the center of rotation, the gyroscopic system is balanced. Maybe this just looks like a contradiction.

 

[Marie]

<< Phil, Phil, Phil… >>

Switch to the age of the earth or evolution issue and we might have something to debate. I’m pretty well versed on these, there is plenty of material available, and I have plenty of ammunition. No one accepts geocentrism.

Phil P

Obviously some do…but then there are a lot of people who still think the Moon is made of Green cheese. I’m waiting for Sugenis to advance that theory too. I’m sure it will be a big winner with some.

 

[buffalo]

You’re kidding! It’s not!!! The cheeseheads will be very disappointed to learn this.

 

[Marie]

buffalo:

You’re kidding! It’s not!!! The cheeseheads will be very disappointed to learn this.

I know…but someday they will have to grow up and stop wearing their cheese on their head and learn to eat it like normal people!

 

[buffalo]

Marie:

I know…but someday they will have to grow up and stop wearing their cheese on their head and learn to eat it like normal people!

They only do it on game days! I think.

 

[Wildgraywolf]

Maybe someone can help me understand…

If there was a big bang wouldn’t everything still be “flying” away from the point where it occurred?

Would not the center of the universe be where the big bang was?

If there was a big bang then how can geocentrism be true?

 

[scm]

Wildgraywolf:

Maybe someone can help me understand…

If there was a big bang wouldn’t everything still be “flying” away from the point where it occurred?

Would not the center of the universe be where the big bang was?

If there was a big bang then how can geocentrism be true?

That is not exactly a description of the Big Bang theory. In that theory, the universe is expanding as a hypersphere, all points are moving away from all other points, and the points are not so much moving as that there is new space being created between them. There is no geometric center, the analogy would be a balloon that is being inflated, there is no point on the surface that can be called the center.

“If there was a big bang then how can geocentrism be true”.

My approach is to look at theories independently and see if they lead to contradictions. For me, both the Big Bang Theory and Geocentrism have problems independently.

 

[Marie]

buffalo:

They only do it on game days! I think.

Not my cheese head friends… They do it 24/7…

 

[wanerious]

scm:

That is not exactly a description of the Big Bang theory. In that theory, the universe is expanding as a hypersphere, all points are moving away from all other points, and the points are not so much moving as that there is new space being created between them. There is no geometric center, the analogy would be a balloon that is being inflated, there is no point on the surface that can be called the center.

A nice description.

For me, both the Big Bang Theory and Geocentrism have problems independently.

I’d be happy to try to be an apologist for the Big Bang. Occupational hazard, you see.