Is Geocentrism Possible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trth_skr
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
PhilVaz:
OK I am almost ready to do battle with Mark at his advanced level of understanding.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DummiePhysics.jpg
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/IdiotUniverse.jpg

Phil P :yawn:
Click to expand...
Well, read the books. They were obviously written for you. 😉

All joking aside, Merry Christmas to you, all on this thread (yes, even Alec), and Catholic Answers.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogpsot.com
 
<< Well, read the books. They were obviously written for you. >>

Good one. I do have a book: Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein. I will now let this thread go away. But I think I understand two points of Alec now: under Newtonian mechanics geocentrism is disproved by modern physics and astronomy, and under General Relativity geocentrism has no meaning. And Steve’s point the earth is larger than a single point, it has volume. Thank you and goodnight. :yawn:

Phil P
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Science has not demonstrated that the earth moves (rotates or translates) in a manner distinguishable from a counter movement of the universe. The Church has made declarations that the earth does not translate or rotate and the sun does move [around the earth].

Science is strongly of the opinion that the earth does move (though it cannot demonstrate that). The Church at this time is not requiring the faithful to reject modern science’s opinion.

What do you think about the truth of the matter?

Geocentricity 101: A beginner’s Course
Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
Click to expand...
OK, I read the references you provided and I have to tell you that this is laughable. None of these references point of to the Minkowski space-time homogeneity and Schwarzshield’s metric tensor solutions to Einstein’s gravity equations. If geocentrism was correct, you would have to re-introduce the reciprocal value of the (almost discarded, although not quite) cosmological constant, which would break down our understanding of quantum mechanics so far.
Now, there are more interesting facets about certain things and some of them are described even in popular books.
Believe me, the chain Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Einstein is quite unbreakable at this point. All the data collected by Tycho would have to be discarded and Kepler’s own mathematical treatments of them would have to be discarded and Newton’s elementary gravity theory would not be applicable (but it is, on a limited scale)
So, lets not bring geocentrism back to the discussion, I think that this is not really an issue anymore. I am amazed that someone would even bring this up.
Tomas (the mathematician)
 
40.png
hecd2:
…you statement of the Einstein equivalence principle was wrong

…
Click to expand...
Before you jump on this one:

equivalency principle relates to equivalence experiments in inertial reference frames.

I am referring to the general principle of relativity for the acceptibility of all reference frames.

You are right I used the wrong terminology.

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
tomaskovarik:
OK, I read the references you provided and I have to tell you that this is laughable. None of these references point of to the Minkowski space-time homogeneity and Schwarzshield’s metric tensor solutions to Einstein’s gravity equations. If geocentrism was correct, you would have to re-introduce the reciprocal value of the (almost discarded, although not quite) cosmological constant, which would break down our understanding of quantum mechanics so far.
Now, there are more interesting facets about certain things and some of them are described even in popular books.
Believe me, the chain Tycho de Brahe, Kepler, Newton, Einstein is quite unbreakable at this point. All the data collected by Tycho would have to be discarded and Kepler’s own mathematical treatments of them would have to be discarded and Newton’s elementary gravity theory would not be applicable (but it is, on a limited scale)
So, lets not bring geocentrism back to the discussion, I think that this is not really an issue anymore. I am amazed that someone would even bring this up.
Tomas (the mathematician)
Click to expand...
It seems unfair to lay the discrtepancies between QM and GR at the feet of geocentrism!

Are you proposing a steady state universe?

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
 
40.png
trth_skr:
Alec:

It is clear that your methodology for disproving geocentrism is by attacking the credibility of those who support it. Sounds more like fear than knowledge.
Click to expand...
No I am merely pointing out that neither you nor Bob Sungenis have the appropriate grounding in physics to conduct this debate. You have made many egregious errors in your posts that plainly demonstrate that you don’t understand most of the concepts you spout. In your reply above to the litany of errors with which I tasked you, you made lame excuses for some errors, repeated some and committed entirely new ones. Every single reply emphasised your lack of understanding. For example, what on earth is this supposed to mean:
I was talking about what I presumed were red / blue shifted quadrapoles (admittedly I may have been wrong), while you were referring to the temperature anisotropy
Click to expand...
Not content with misusing (and mis-spelling) the word ‘quadrupole’ once, you do so again in a way that makes it quite obvious that you have no idea what it means. What devil leads you to attempt to be magisterial about concepts that you don’t begin to understand? If I explain what the quadrupole moment in the CMB anisotropy is, do you promise never to try to use the CMB as suppport for your geocentric notions again?

None of this would matter, except that someone whose knowledge of physics is not at the freshman undergraduate level (actually, what is worse, someone who read a few popular science books and misunderstood them) has the gall to invent a cosmology and physics and lecture professional physicists about it. And what I say for you, goes for Bob Sungenis too.
I challenge you to lay out your case, from a scientific viewpoint as to why geocentrism is incorrect, and allow those who wish to comment on it.
Click to expand...
As someone else on this list says, I’m going to hate myself for this, but for this last time only I shall lay out the reasons why the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe and leave you and everyone else to comment on it to your heart’s content. I haven’t time now so, you’ll have to wait till later.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
40.png
hecd2:
…As someone else on this list says, I’m going to hate myself for this, but for this last time only I shall lay out the reasons why the earth cannot be the unmoving centre of the universe and leave you and everyone else to comment on it to your heart’s content. I haven’t time now so, you’ll have to wait till later.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
Click to expand...
St. Bellarmine asked for this over 340 years, ago. Finally it is coming.

Do be sure to include the evidence for the movement of the earth (as distiguished from counter movement of the universe).

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.copm
 
I am not sure it is true, but it is definitelly posiible. We can’t allways believe in things that. scientists say. Believe in God and science, but not always to scientists. Who knows what are their motives:shrug:
 
NECRO.

And there is no scientific evidence for geocentrism over heliocentrism. The notion is absurd. This is science, not philosophy.
 
trth_skr said:
24th February 1616: The eleven theologian-qualifiers of the Holy Office meet to consider the theological qualifications proper to be attached to the following propositions:

( i ) The sun is the centre of the universe (“mundi”) and absolutely immobile in local motion.

( ii ) The earth is not the centre of the universe (“mundi”); it is not immobile but turns on itself with a diurnal movement.

All unanimously censure the first proposition as “foolish, absurd in philosophy {i.e. scientifically untenable) and formally heretical on the grounds of expressly contradicting the statements of Holy Scripture in many places according to the proper meaning of the words, the common exposition and the understanding of the Holy Fathers and learned theologians”; the second proposition they unanimously censured as likewise “absurd in philosophy” and theologically “at least erroneous in faith”.
**

Mark
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com
**
**
Click to expand...
What does this mean exactly? Does it mean that you are a heretic and will go to hell if you believe that the earth revolves about the sun?
The problem with geocentrism is that it does not take into account the gravitational forces of the various planets and the sun.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top